Filed 3/17/17

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CHARITY FAITH PHILLIPS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F070761

(Super. Ct. No. 12CECG04055)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y. 

Hamilton, Jr., Judge.

Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Robert H. Wright, Curt Cutting; Perkins Coie, 

Brien F. McMahon and Daniel D. O’Shea for Defendant and Appellant. 

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow for Plaintiffs and 

Respondents. 

-ooOoo-

 

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is 

certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, IV, and V of the Discussion.
2.

Defendant Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) appeals from a judgment of 

over $5.8 million awarded to the spouse and surviving children of a man who died of 

asbestos-related cancer. The jury found the mesothelioma contracted by James Lester 

Phillips (Phillips) was caused in part by exposure to asbestos contained in Bendix brakes. 

Honeywell contends a new trial is warranted because (1) the jury’s special verdict 

was fatally inconsistent; (2) the trial court erroneously refused to give its proposed jury 

instruction on the factors relevant to causation; and (3) the trial court erroneously 

admitted prejudicial evidence. Moreover, Honeywell contends judgment should be 

entered in its favor because the verdict was based entirely on a failure to warn theory that 

lacked sufficient evidentiary support. If judgment is not entered in its favor, Honeywell 

contends the $3.5 million award of punitive damages must be reversed because plaintiffs 

failed to introduce sufficient evidence of malice or oppression. 

In the published portion of this opinion, we reject Honeywell’s claims of 

evidentiary error. The trial court properly admitted—subject to a limiting instruction—a 

1966 letter of a Bendix employee sarcastically addressing an article in Chemical Week 

magazine that stated asbestos had been accused, but not yet convicted, as a significant 

health hazard. The letter is circumstantial evidence relevant to the issue of Bendix’s 

awareness of asbestos’s potential to cause cancer. The Illinois and Florida cases holding 

admission of this letter was prejudicial are distinguishable because they did not include a 

limiting instruction. 

In addition, the trial court properly admitted the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert 

about causation and the contributions to Phillips’s risk of cancer from every identified 

exposure to asbestos that Phillips experienced. In the context of this case, the everyidentified-exposure theory is distinguishable from the every-exposure theory and we join 

courts from other jurisdictions in recognizing that distinction. Furthermore, we conclude 

the application of every-identified-exposure theory in this case was consistent with 
3.

California law addressing proof of causation in asbestos-related cancer cases. 

Consequently, we need not address the every-exposure theory that the Second District 

allowed to be presented to the jury in Davis v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2016) 245 

Cal.App.4th 477, review denied May 25, 2016 (Davis)

1 and Honeywell’s contention that 

this court should split with Davis.

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we reject Honeywell’s other 

contentions. First, the jury’s answers to questions in the special verdict about causation 

are not inconsistent. Second, the trial court properly rejected Honeywell’s proposed 

instruction about the factors relevant to causation of asbestos-related cancer. Third, as to 

the sufficiency of the evidence, we conclude there was adequate evidentiary support for 

the jury’s findings that (1) Honeywell was liable under a failure to warn theory and (2) 

Honeywell’s predecessor, Bendix, acted with malice—that is, a willful and conscious 

disregard of the safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1) [definition of malice].) 

We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Bendix and Asbestos

In 1939, The Bendix Corporation (Bendix) began manufacturing friction products, 

including automotive brakes, that contained asbestos.2 Until 1983, Bendix manufactured 

its brakes using 25 to 50 percent asbestos with other ingredients bound in a resin. In 

 

1 The court in Davis concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

allowing the plaintiff’s medical expert to present opinion testimony under the everyexposure theory. (Davis, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 480.) The court reviewed the 

commentary and scientific literature cited by the parties, concluded “the theory is the 

subject of legitimate scientific debate,” and stated it was for the jury to resolve the 

conflict among the competing expert opinions. (Ibid.) 

2 “In 1985, Allied Corporation purchased Bendix. Later, Allied Corporation 

changed its name to Allied Signal, Inc., and in 1999 changed it to Honeywell 

International, Inc.” (Dukes v. Pneumo Abex Corporation (2008) 386 Ill.App.3d 425 428 

[900 N.E.2d 1128, 1131] (Dukes).) 
4.

1983, Bendix began offering asbestos-free brakes for some vehicles, but continued to 

manufacture and sell asbestos-containing brakes until 2001. 

Bendix operated a manufacturing facility in Troy, New York. By 1944, Bendix 

had installed a ventilation system at the facility to assist in the removal of dust. Also, 

duct work was hooked up to grinding machines to remove the grinding dust from the 

workplace. Sometime during the 1950’s, Bendix began giving employees at the facility 

annual chest x-rays. 

In 1956, New York’s Department of Labor adopted regulations setting a maximum 

allowable concentration for airborne asbestos at 5 million particles per cubic foot. These 

regulations applied at Bendix’s Troy plant. 

In March 1966, the New York Times published an article titled, “Asbestos Dust 

Called a Hazard To at Least One-Fourth of U.S.” The title’s reference to a quarter of the 

pollution was described as a preliminary finding by Dr. Irving J. Selikoff, who announced 

the establishment of an environmental health laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital to 

further investigate the dangers of asbestos and other contaminants. The article mentioned 

Dr. Selikoff’s finding of a link between cancer and asbestos in asbestos workers and his 

belief that the dangers extended to contiguous trades, such as construction workers. The 

article also stated that asbestos was used in fireproof materials, asphalt tile, dental 

cement, brake linings, beer filters, gas masks and paper. 

Later in 1966, the publication of Asbestos: Awaiting ‘Trial’ (Sept. 10, 1966) 

Chemical Week, at page 32 caused E. A. Martin, director of purchases at Bendix’s Troy 

facility, to write a now-infamous letter to Bendix’s asbestos supplier (Martin letter). The 

letter was dated September 12, 1966, and addressed to Noel Hendry of Canadian JohnsManville Asbestos Limited at Asbestos, Quebec, Canada.3

 A box appearing immediately 

 

3 The Chemical Week article, Martin’s letter, and Hendry’s September 29, 1966, 

reply are discussed in Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects (5th ed. 2005) p. 

534. 
5.

above the article’s title listed sources of airborne asbestos, including “Motor vehicle 

brake linings and clutch plates.” The contents of the Martin letter are quoted in full in 

part III.A.1, post. The Martin letter plays a role in this appeal because Honeywell 

contends its admission into evidence was prejudicial error. 

Honeywell’s corporate representative testified that in 1973 Bendix began placing 

warning on the cartons for asbestos-containing brake pads. The warning label used the 

exact language prescribed by newly enacted OSHA regulations and was placed on the 

side of the box so it would be visible when the boxes were stacked. The warning stated: 

“Caution: Contains asbestos fibers, avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may 

cause serious bodily harm.” 

In December 1975, Jacob W. Tawiah presented Bendix with a review of the 

medical literature addressing the health hazards of asbestos. The executive summary of 

the review stated that medical knowledge at that time associated asbestos with three 

primary diseases: asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is 

the most deadly of the three. It also described the general agreement that the diseases are 

positively correlated to the intensity and duration of exposure to asbestos dust, but noted 

“there is no conclusive proof of a safe threshold level of exposure.” The summary stated 

that there have been cases of mesothelioma that cannot be linked to asbestos, but 

exposure to asbestos dust is the only known cause of mesothelioma. The commentary 

section of the executive summary stated: “The medical literature is full of solid evidence 

linking asbestos to disease. Eliminating the emission of asbestos dust into the working 

environment appears to be an obvious way of dealing with the problem. This, however, 

may not be the most feasible approach in light of economic considerations. It then 

becomes necessary to examine what other alternatives exist.” Many of the references

listed at the end of the review predate the 1970’s. 
6.

Asbestos

The term “asbestos” is applied to six different types of naturally occurring mineral 

fibers. (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 177, fn. 2 (Webb).) 

When mined and processed, asbestos generally is separated into thin fibers that are then 

mixed with a binding agent so the fibers may be used in various products. (Ibid.)4 The 

individual fibers are invisible to the naked eye. (Ibid.) The six types of asbestos are 

divided into two groups, amphibole and serpentine. The only member of the serpentine 

group used in a commercial setting is chrysotile, which was the type used in Bendix 

brakes. The amphibole family contains the other five types, of which amosite and 

crocidolite are used commercially. The differences between the two groups was 

explained during the trial and Honeywell argued Phillips’s mesothelioma was caused by 

his exposure to asbestos fibers from the amphibole group, not chrysotile fibers from 

Bendix brakes.

The different types of asbestos have different physical properties and different 

chemical makeups. As to shape, chrysotile tends to be curved (i.e., spiral) and thin 

compared to the straight, thin structure of amphibole asbestos. The physical and 

chemical differences affect both the human body’s ability to clear the fiber and the fiber’s 

toxicity—that is, the likelihood the fiber will cause disease. 

In this case, the term “biopersistence” was used to refer to the capacity of asbestos 

fibers to persist over time in specific tissues of the body and retain their chemical and 

physical features. Underlying the use of this term is the testimony that the longer a fiber 

 

4 Asbestos was used by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Charlemagne. (See 

Comment, The Threshold Level of Proof of Asbestos Causation: The “Frequency, 

Regularity and Proximity Test” and a Modified Summers v. Tice Theory of BurdenShifting (1995) 24 Cap. U. L.Rev. 735, 737 [Roman slaves wore transparent bladder skins 

as veils to avoid inhaling asbestos dust]; Comment, Issues in Asbestos Litigation (1983) 

34 Hastings L.J. 871, 872, fn. 7.)
7.

remains in the tissue and retains the characteristics of asbestos, the higher the risk that it 

will induce adverse health effects. 

Carl Andrew Brodkin, M.D., testified as plaintiffs’ medical expert. Dr. Brodkin 

stated amphiboles last longer in the human body, with a half-life measured in months or 

years, while the half-life of chrysotile is measured in weeks or months. Nonetheless, Dr. 

Brodkin stated his opinion that (1) all of the major types of commercial asbestos fibers 

are known to cause cancer, in both the lung and the lining of the lung; (2) amosite and 

crocidolite are about three times more potent than chrysotile in causing mesothelioma;5

and (3) persons exposed to chrysotile have far higher rates of mesothelioma than 

individuals who are not exposed. In contrast, a Honeywell expert, Richard L. Attanoos, 

M.D., testified that chrysotile-containing friction products, such as brakes, do not cause 

mesothelioma. Another Honeywell expert, David Weill, M.D., testified that available 

medical literature and cohort studies showed that individuals working with chrysotile 

products did not have an elevated risk of mesothelioma. Dr. Weill distinguished the risk 

from lower exposures experienced by people who work with chrysotile products from the 

risk of higher exposures experienced by workers who mine chrysotile. 

Dr. Attanoos explained his opinion that brakes do not cause mesothelioma by 

stating that (1) the asbestos in brakes is chrysotile, not amphibole, and chrysotile has a 

low biopersistence; (2) the chamfering done before brakes are installed releases fibers 

encapsulated in resin that do not have the normal respirability; (3) the brake dust created 

by the braking process contains only about one percent chrysotile because the friction of 

 

5 The experts who testified in Webb, supra, 63 Cal.4th 167, presented a range of 

opinions about the relative risk of contracting mesothelioma after exposure to crocidolite 

and chrysotile. “One expert opined that crocidolite presents five times the risk of 

chrysotile asbestos ... and conceded crocidolite might present a risk as high as 10 times 

the toxicity of chrysotile. A second expert opined that crocidolite is 500 times as toxic, 

and testified that others estimated its risk to be 800 times has high.” (Id. at p. 194, (conc. 

& dis. opn. of Cantil-Sakauye, C.J.).) 
8.

braking creates very high temperatures that breaks down the chrysotile into a 

noncarcinogenic material called forsterite; and (4) the chrysolite remaining in brake dust 

tends to be very small in size. 

Dr. Brodkin agreed the heat of braking causes a breakdown of asbestos fiber into 

forsterite and “[t]here is no evidence that forsterite causes disease.” He testified the 

studies of brake dust that found less than one percent residual asbestos were at the low 

end of the range and referred to other studies finding 5, 6 and 15 percent residual asbestos 

in brake dust. 

Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is a relatively rare cancer that occurs in the lining of the lung, 

which is called the pleura. (Webb, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 194-195 (conc. & dis. opn. of 

Cantil-Sakauye, C.J.).) As the cancer grows, it “will eventually entrap the entire lung, 

creating the tightening effect of a corset by preventing the lung from expanding. The 

cancer also grows outward into the chest wall where it irritates nerve roots, creating pain. 

People with mesothelioma live, on average, 12 to 14 months.” (Id. at p. 195.)

Our Supreme Court recently described mesothelioma as a cancer “closely 

associated with asbestos exposure.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 

1141; see Moran v. Foster Wheel Energy Corp. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 500, 503 

[mesothelioma is “a cancer uniquely associated with exposure to asbestos”]; Hoffheimer, 

California’s Territorial Turn in Choice of Law (2015) 67 Rutgers U. L.Rev. 167, 191, fn. 

125 [research report of National Cancer Institute cited for propositions that by “1988, 

asbestos was identified as the only known risk factor for mesothelioma” and the time lag 

between exposure and developing mesothelioma usually is 30 to 40 years].)

Dr. Brodkin testified that mesothelioma is a dose-response disease, which means 

the greater the dose of asbestos, the greater the risk for the disease. Dr. Brodkin’s 

testimony about the causal connection between the asbestos exposures identified in this 

case and Phillips’s mesothelioma is set forth in part III.B.4, post.
9.

Mesothelioma (in contrast to asbestosis) is not a cumulative disease in the sense 

that each inhalation of asbestos generates a certain amount of disability. (Stapleton, The 

Two Explosive Proof-of-Causation Doctrines Central to Asbestos Claims (2009) 74 

Brook. L.Rev. 1011, 1023.) The more a person is exposed to asbestos, the more likely 

asbestos-related cancer will occur, but once the cancer occurs its severity does not depend 

upon the amount of asbestos to which the victim was exposed. (Id. at pp. 1023-1024.) 

Also, mesothelioma is “indivisible in the sense that it is beyond our current abilities to 

ascertain which asbestos fiber(s) caused the illness.” (Sanders, The “Every Exposure” 

Cases and the Beginning of the Asbestos Endgame (2014) 88 Tul. L.Rev. 1153, 1161.) 

This characteristic underlies our Supreme Court’s conclusion in Rutherford v. OwensIllinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 (Rutherford) that “[i]n an asbestos-related cancer 

case, the plaintiff need not prove [asbestos] fibers from the defendant’s product were the 

ones, or among the ones, that actually began the process of malignant cellular growth.” 

(Id. at p. 982.) Instead, our Supreme Court adopted a special rule allowing plaintiffs to 

prove exposure to the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing the cancer 

by showing (in a reasonable medical probability) the exposure was a substantial factor 

contributing to the decedent’s risk of developing cancer. (Ibid.) 

Phillips’s Exposure to Asbestos

Phillips was born in September 1953. In 1967, Phillips had a summer job where 

he learned how to change brakes. In 1969, 1970 and 1971, while in high school, Phillips 

worked as an attendant and mechanic at gas stations in Mariposa. While employed at the 

gas stations, he performed many tasks, including brake jobs. In addition to the brake jobs 

at the gas stations, Phillips performed brake jobs on his own vehicles and the vehicles of 
10.

friends.6 Phillips did brake jobs throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, right up to the time he 

was diagnosed with mesothelioma. 

When asked if he could quantify the number of vehicles on which he did brake 

work, Phillips answered, “No. A lot.” Asked again during his deposition, Phillips stated, 

“I couldn’t count them. Quite a few.” Phillips identified the brands of brakes he installed 

or removed as Raybestos, Rayloc, Wizard, Bendix and Vapex. He was aware of the 

brand because it was printed on the box and stamped on a metal part of the brake. 

Phillips described the steps he took when installing Bendix brakes as follows:

“Take it out of the package, clean them up. You want to scuff the shiny 

stuff off with sandpaper, you know, if you have some rough 80 [grain 

sandpaper], and chamfer the edges. Remove the old brakes, install the new 

brakes with the springs and stuff – the new brake drums with the springs 

and stuff – the new brake pads with the springs. Clean all the dirt out, blow 

all the dust off, and then install the new brakes, and put the drum back on, 

and then you readjust the brakes up until the drum stops moving and back it 

off 13 clicks, and put your tires on it.” 

Phillips also stated that the cleaning process involved the use of compressed air to 

blow the dust out of the brake drum, which was messy but worked well. 

In 1972, at the age of 19, Phillips was employed as a maintenance worker by 

Mariposa County High School. Phillips held that job for one year. He sometimes 

worked at a bench in a room that housed a boiler and insulated steam pipes. Phillips also 

worked directly with insulation. When a valve on the steam heating system 

malfunctioned, Phillips or his boss would fix the valve and then Phillips would remove 

any affected insulation, do the necessary clean up, and replace the pipe’s insulation. He 

also remembered removing insulation from a storage tank and rewrapping the tank with 

new insulation. Phillips testified that he assumed the insulation contained asbestos. 

 

6 Phillips owned roughly 40 vehicles over his lifetime. Honeywell summarized his 

deposition testimony by stating Phillips was able to recall changing brakes on 21 

vehicles, which he identified by make and model. 
11.

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Brodkin, testified the insulation was likely to contain asbestos and 

estimated its content at 12 to 50 percent. Dr. Attanoos testified thermal insulation from 

that period would have contained amphibole asbestos. The jury allocated 15 percent of 

the fault to boiler insulation, impliedly finding the insulation contained asbestos. 

During Phillips’s employment at the high school, he also worked on a project that 

involved the installation of asbestos cement pipe, which he called transite pipe.7 Phillips 

estimated that he installed approximately 120 linear feet of the pipe and cut the pipe 

about 40 times using a snap cutter, Skilsaw with carborundum blade, or a handsaw. 

Phillips stated he did about half the cuts with the Skilsaw, which he described as messy. 

In 1973, Phillips began working as a plumber. He worked about seven years for 

Hudson’s Plumbing, followed by a year at Posey Plumbing. In the late 1980’s, he 

returned to Hudson’s Plumbing for another four years. Phillips testified that he worked 

with asbestos cement pipe while at Hudson’s Plumbing. 

Phillips worked a brief stint with the Mariposa Public Utilities District and then 

was employed by a construction company. One of the construction company’s projects 

involved the removal of water and sewer lines at Yosemite National Park, some of which 

were asbestos cement pipe. The jury allocated 23 percent of fault to asbestos-containing 

cement pipe. 

Additional exposures to asbestos occurred when Phillips did repair and 

maintenance work on vehicles he owned or friends owned, such as (1) the installation of 

clutches and (2) the removal and installation of gaskets, particularly on carburetors. 

Phillips testified he learned how to perform a clutch job when he was 14 or 15 years old 

and did his last clutch job about two years before his 2012 deposition. He stated he could 

 

7

In Webb, the court stated that Johns-Manville “made an asbestos cement pipe 

known as Transite pipe. Although ‘Transite’ was trademarked by Johns-Manville, the 

name became a generic term for all brands of asbestos cement pipe.” (Webb, supra, 63 

Cal.4th at p. 178.) 
12.

not count the number of clutch jobs he did, but described some of the vehicles he worked 

on, including a 1966 Chevelle Super Sport that he and his wife used to drag race and 

required 13 new clutches. The jury allocated 9 percent of the fault to clutches and 5

percent to automotive gaskets. 

In March 2012, Phillips was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died in February 

2013. 

PROCEEDINGS

In May 2012, Phillips and his wife, Charity Phillips, filed a complaint seeking

damages for personal injuries caused by asbestos. In May 2013, after Phillips’s death, 

Charity Phillips, individually and as the personal representative of his estate, filed a first 

amended complaint alleging negligence and strict liability. Three of their children were 

added as plaintiffs and asserted claims for wrongful death.8 For purposes of this opinion, 

“plaintiffs” refer to Phillips’s wife and the three children. 

The first amended complaint named over 25 defendants engaged in the 

manufacture or supply of products containing asbestos. Defendant Honeywell, formerly 

known as AlliedSignal Inc., was sued individually and as the successor-in-interest to The 

Bendix Corporation, a manufacturer of automotive brakes. Bendix brakes were among 

the asbestos-containing products to which Phillips was exposed. 

Plaintiffs settled with most of the defendants and the matter proceeded to trial 

against Honeywell and Calaveras Asbestos Ltd. Calaveras Asbestos Ltd. was granted 

nonsuit during the jury trial. As a result, Honeywell was the only defendant remaining in 

the case when it was presented to the jury. 

 

8 Phillips and Charity were married in 1972. Their youngest child was 30 years old 

at the time of Phillips’s deposition in September 2012. 
13.

Jury’s Findings as to Liability

In May 2014, the jury completed a special verdict form that addressed plaintiffs’ 

negligence claim and three separate theories of strict liability. As to negligence, the jury 

expressly found (1) Phillips had been exposed to asbestos from Bendix brakes; (2) 

Bendix was negligent in manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing brakes; and (3) 

Bendix’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Phillips. 

Plaintiffs’ other successful legal theory was strict liability based on the failure to 

warn. The jury found (1) Bendix’s asbestos-containing products had potential risks that 

were known or knowable in light of the generally accepted scientific and medical

knowledge that was available at the time of sale; (2) the potential risks of Bendix’s 

asbestos-containing products presented a substantial danger to persons using or misusing 

the product in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; (3) ordinary consumers of the 

products would have failed to recognize the potential risks; (4) Bendix did not adequately 

warn or instruct consumers of the potential risks; and (5) the lack of sufficient warnings 

or instructions on Bendix’s asbestos-containing products was a substantial factor in 

causing harm to Phillips. 

Plaintiffs were unsuccessful on their strict liability theories based on (1) a riskbenefit analysis of the product’s design and (2) consumer expectations. The jury 

answered “no” when asked if the risks of Bendix’s design outweighed the benefits of the 

design. As to consumer expectations, the jury found that Bendix’s products failed to 

perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected when used or misused in 

an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. However, the jury also found that the design 

of the products was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Phillips. 

The jury was asked to allocate the fault that caused harm to Phillips among eight 

sources. Those sources and the jury’s percentage allocation were Bendix (30 percent), 

asbestos-containing cement pipe (23 percent), brakes from other manufacturers (15 
14.

percent), boiler insulation (15 percent), clutches (9 percent), automotive gaskets (5

percent), joint compound (3 percent), and mastic (0 percent).9 

Actual Damages

The parties stipulated to economic damages of $900,000. The amount of 

noneconomic damages was decided by the jury. It found Charity Phillips’s noneconomic 

losses were $5,550,000 and the three children experienced noneconomic losses of 

$329,500 each. Thus, plaintiffs’ noneconomic damages totaled $6,538,500. 

Punitive Damages

The jury’s special verdict included a finding that, based on clear and convincing 

evidence, one or more of Bendix’s officers, directors or managing agents acted with 

malice or oppression in the conduct upon which the finding of liability was based. Based 

on this finding, the trial proceeded to a punitive damages phase. The jury awarded $3.5 

million in punitive damages. 

Judgment and Appeal

The damages were adjusted by the trial court to reflect (1) the jury’s allocation of 

fault to other causes and (2) the settlements paid to plaintiffs by other defendants. The 

settlements totaled $4,041,750. The court determined Honeywell was liable for 

$1,961,550 in noneconomic damages (i.e., 30 percent of $6,538,500), $414,990 in 

economic damages, and $3.5 million in punitive damages. 

 

9 “Mastic” refers to a paste-like material spread before the installation of tiles or 

other flooring. Exposure to asbestos can occur while installing new flooring or while 

removing old flooring and the mastic holding it in place. When in his early teens, 

Phillips removed the vinyl flooring in a laundry room so new flooring could be installed. 

The job involved scraping the old mastic off the floor, which Phillips accomplished using 

a wire brush and spatula. The jury’s finding as to mastic implies it did not accept or 

apply the every-exposure theory challenged by Honeywell. (See pt. III, B, post.)
15.

On September 17, 2014, the trial court entered a judgment holding Honeywell 

liable for $5,876,540. In October 2014, Honeywell filed a notice of appeal challenging 

the judgment. 

DISCUSSION

I. CONSISTENCY OF THE SPECIAL VERDICT*

Honeywell’s claims of legal error are discussed in reverse chronological order. 

First, we consider whether the answers in the special verdict are consistent. Second, we 

address whether the trial court erred in rejecting Honeywell’s proposed jury instruction 

about the factors relevant to causation. Third, we consider Honeywell’s claims that 

evidence was improperly admitted. After resolving the claims of legal error, we turn to 

Honeywell’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury’s findings relating 

to (1) the failure to warn and (2) punitive damages.

A. Basic Principles of Law

1. Appellate Review

Whether two of the jury’s findings in a special verdict are inconsistent with each 

other is analyzed as a matter of law. (City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego 

Holding Co., Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 668, 678.) Consequently, when analyzing a 

claim of inconsistency, appellate courts conduct an independent review that does not 

defer to the trial court’s determination. (See Collins v. Navistar, Inc. (2013) 214 

Cal.App.4th 1486, 1500 [special verdict’s correctness subject to de novo review].) When 

an appellate court identifies inconsistent findings in a special verdict, it may not choose 

which of the inconsistent findings to implement. (Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc.

(2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 358 (Singh).) Instead, a new trial must be ordered. (Ibid.) 

 

* See footnote, ante, page 1.
16.

2. Identifying an Inconsistency

The test for inconsistency requires that there be no possibility of reconciling the 

answers in the special verdicts with each other. (Singh, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 

357.) Under this test, courts evaluate whether there is any possibility of reconciliation 

under any possible application of the evidence and the jury instructions. (Lambert v. 

General Motors (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1183.) If it is reasonable to draw 

conclusions that would explain the purported contradiction, the reviewing court deems 

the jury to have drawn those conclusions and the answers in the special verdict are 

upheld. (Ibid.)

B. Instructions Given and Findings Made in This Case

1. Instruction Relating to Causation

The jury’s answers to questions contained in a special verdict must be evaluated in 

context. That context includes the evidence presented, the arguments made, and the 

instructions given. In this case, the following instructions about causation were given: 

“A person’s negligence may combine with another factor to cause harm. If 

you find that defendant Honeywell (Bendix)’s negligence was a substantial 

factor in causing [harm to plaintiffs], then defendant is responsible for 

plaintiffs’ harm.

“Defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, 

condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm.

“A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person 

would consider to have contributed to the harm. It does not have to be the 

only cause of the harm.

“Plaintiffs ... may prove that exposure to asbestos from defendant 

Honeywell (Bendix)’s product was a substantial factor causing James 

Lester Phillips’ illness by showing through expert testimony that there is a 

reasonable medical probability that the exposure was a substantial factor 

contributing to his risk of developing cancer.” 
17.

The final paragraph of these instructions was based on CACI No. 435 (Causation 

for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims), which sets forth the special rule for proving 

causation adopted by our Supreme Court in Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th 953.

During its deliberations, the jury sent the trial court a written request for a 

definition of the word “substantial.” The jury’s request referred to a question in the 

special verdict relating to causation that used the term “substantial factor.” 

The trial court’s response was influenced by the statements in Rutherford that 

undue emphasis should not be placed on the term “substantial” and that it was neither 

possible nor desirable to reduce “substantial factor” to any lower terms. (Rutherford, 

supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 969.) The trial court told counsel they could either agree to a 

definition and thereby “waive appeal on that one issue” or the court would tell the jury 

that the term “substantial” could not be defined further than already found in the 

instructions. Counsel could not agree on a definition and the court informed the jury that 

a further definition could not be provided. Neither side contends the trial court 

committed error by deciding not to provide a further definition to the jury.10

2. Questions and Answers About Causation

The first three questions in the special verdict form addressed plaintiffs’ 

negligence cause of action. The jury answered the first two questions by finding that 

Phillips had been exposed to asbestos from Bendix brakes and Bendix had been negligent 

in designing and manufacturing, or in selling, its brakes. Question 3 of the special verdict 

asked: “Was Bendix’s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to James 

Phillips?” The jury answered “yes” in a nine-to-three vote. 

 

10 The trial court rejected plaintiffs’ proposed instruction that incorporated part of 

CACI No. 430 and the following statement by the Supreme Court: “This court has 

suggested that a force which plays only an ‘infinitesimal’ or ‘theoretical’ part in bringing 

about injury, damage, or loss is not a substantial factor.” (Rutherford, supra, 15 Cal.4th 

at p. 969.) The second sentence of CACI No. 430 states a substantial factor “must be 

more than a remote or trivial factor.” 
18.

The special verdict form presented three theories of strict liability to the jury—

consumer expectation, risk-benefit and failure to warn. As to strict liability based on a 

failure to warn, the 11th and 12th questions in the special verdict form asked if Bendix 

failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential risks of its asbestos-containing 

products and, if so, whether the failure was a substantial factor in causing harm to 

Phillips. The jury answered both questions “yes.” 

As to strict liability under the consumer expectations theory, the fourth question in 

the special verdict asked: “Did Bendix’s asbestos-containing products fail to perform as 

safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected when used or misused in an 

intended or reasonably foreseeable way?’ The jury answered “Yes.” The fifth question 

asked: “Was the design of Bendix’s asbestos-containing products a substantial factor in 

causing harm to James Phillips?” The jury answered “No.” 

Honeywell contends this “No” answer relating to causation is diametrically 

opposed to the jury’s findings that Bendix’s negligence and its failure to warn were 

substantial factors in causing Phillips’s harm. Honeywell argues: “Having found the 

design did not cause his harm, the jury could not logically conclude that a failure to warn 

of a potential hazard did harm Phillips.” We disagree. The findings are easily 

reconciled. 

3. Possible Reconciliation of Findings 

First, the above-quoted argument by Honeywell slightly mischaracterizes the 

jury’s findings and then uses that slight mischaracterization to support its claim of 

inconsistency. The jury’s answer “no” to whether “the design of Bendix’s asbestoscontaining products [was] a substantial factor in causing harm to James Phillips” is not 

exactly the same as finding absolutely no causal connection between the design and 

Phillips’s mesothelioma. The “no” answer leaves open the possibility that the design was 

a factor in causing the harm—specifically, that it was an insubstantial factor. Under the 
19.

rules for determining inconsistency, we must determine whether this possible 

interpretation of the jury’s finding can be reconciled with the jury’s other findings that 

negligence and the failure to warn were substantial factors in causing the harm to 

Phillips.

We conclude it is possible for a jury to find that the design of the Bendix brakes 

was an insubstantial factor in causing Phillips’s mesothelioma and that negligence and 

the failure to warn were substantial factors in causing the illness. The jury reasonably 

could have concluded that the factor to be given the greatest weight was the one that 

operated closest in time to the exposure and, similarly, the least substantial factor was the 

one furthest removed in time. Weighing the evidence in this manner (1) is not contrary to 

law, (2) would not have violated any of the instructions given to the jury, and (3) is 

consistent with the leeway given to the jury.11 In short, the jury reasonably could have 

determined the lack of a warning was the dominant factor in causing the harm. 

Therefore, under the rules that define when answers in a special verdict are 

inconsistent (see pt. I.A.2, ante), we conclude the jury’s answers to questions about 

causation and substantial factors can be reconciled and Honeywell is not entitled to a new 

trial on the ground of inconsistencies in the special verdict.

II. INSTRUCTIONAL ERROR RELATING TO CAUSATION*

A. Basic Principle of Law

1. Independent Standard of Review

Whether the trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous is a legal question to 

which appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review. (Harb v. City of Bakersfield

(2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 606, 617.) Many types of instructional error are recognized by 

 

11 That leeway is demonstrated in part by the trial court’s decision not to provide a 

further definition of the term “substantial.”

* See footnote, ante, page 1.
20.

California courts. (Id. at p. 619.) In this appeal, the error asserted is the refusal to give a 

proposed instruction. 

2. Rejection of Proposed Instruction

“A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on 

every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence. 

The trial court ... must instruct in specific terms that relate the party’s theory to the 

particular case.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 (Soule).) 

Rejection of a proposed instruction that correctly states the law is not necessarily error. 

A court may refuse to give an otherwise correct instruction if it duplicates matters 

covered in other jury instructions. (City of Los Angeles v. Retlaw Enterprises, Inc. (1976) 

16 Cal.3d 473, 490.) 

Of relevance in this appeal is the principle that when a portion of a proposed 

instruction is legally correct and another portion is incorrect, the trial court commits no 

error by rejecting the instruction. (Heggblade-Marguleas-Tenneco, Inc. v. Sunshine 

Biscuit, Inc. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 948, 957 [instruction must be entirely correct before 

appellant may complain about trial court’s refusal to give it].) Generally, the trial court 

in a civil case has no sua sponte duty to revise, edit or cull the incorrect statements of law 

from a proposed instruction and present a corrected version of the instruction to the jury. 

(Menchaca v. Helms Bakeries, Inc. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 535, 543; see 3 Wegner, et al., Cal. 

Practice Guide: Civil Trial and Evidence (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 14:26 p. 14-8 [no 

duty to modify incorrect instructions].) In addition, a court may refuse a proposed 

instruction that is misleading. (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 

Cal.App.4th 655, 684-685.)
21.

B. Jury Instructions

1. Instructions Given by Trial Court

The four paragraphs of instructions given the jury on the topic of causation are set 

forth in part I.B.1, ante, and need not be repeated here. The first two paragraphs were 

based on CACI No. 431 (Causation: Multiple Causes). The last two paragraphs were 

based on CACI No. 435 (Causation for Asbestos-Related Cancer Claims). 

CACI No. 435’s discussion of exposure to asbestos is derived from statements 

made by the California Supreme Court in Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th 953, which 

includes the following:

“In an asbestos-related cancer case, the plaintiff need not prove that fibers 

from the defendant’s product were the ones, or among the ones, that 

actually began the process of malignant cellular growth. Instead, the 

plaintiff may meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendant’s 

product was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in 

reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the 

plaintiff’s or decedent’s risk of developing cancer. The jury should be so 

instructed. The standard instructions on substantial factor and concurrent 

causation (BAJI Nos. 3.76 & 3.77) remain correct in this context and 

should also be given.” (Rutherford, supra, at pp. 982-983, fn. omitted.) 

The jury instructions given in this case are consistent with the directions provided 

by our Supreme Court in Rutherford. 

2. Honeywell’s Proposed Instruction

Honeywell proposed the following as special instruction No. 1: 

“The parties dispute whether James Phillips’s claimed exposure to 

asbestos-containing Bendix brakes was a substantial factor in causing his 

mesothelioma. [¶] Many factors are relevant in assessing the medical 

probability that any alleged asbestos exposure was a substantial factor in 

causing an injury. These factors include the type of asbestos, the nature of 

the exposure, the frequency of the exposure, the regularity of exposure, the 

duration of exposure, the proximity of the asbestos-containing product, and 

the type of asbestos-containing product.” (Italics added.) 
22.

C. Proposed Instruction: Inaccurate or Misleading

The proposed instruction refers to the medical probability that an asbestos 

exposure was a substantial factor in causing an injury. This choice of words does not 

accurately track the special rule for proving causation adopted in Rutherford to address 

the currently unsolvable problem of identifying the manufacturer of the specific fibers of 

asbestos that caused the cancer. (Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 976.) Our Supreme 

Court described the problem and its solution as follows: 

“Plaintiffs cannot be expected to prove the scientifically unknown details of 

carcinogenesis, or trace the unknowable path of a given asbestos fiber. But 

the impossibility of such proof does not dictate use of a burden shift. 

Instead, we can bridge this gap in the humanly knowable by holding that 

plaintiffs may prove causation in asbestos-related cancer cases by 

demonstrating that the plaintiff’s exposure to defendant’s asbestoscontaining product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial 

factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or 

decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing asbestosrelated cancer, without the need to demonstrate that fibers from the 

defendant’s particular product were the ones, or among the ones, that 

actually produced the malignant growth.” (Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at 

pp. 976-977, first italics added.)

This solution is reflected in the language of CACI No. 435 that refers to showing 

“a reasonable medical probability that the exposure was a substantial factor contributing 

to [his/her] risk of developing cancer.” In comparison, Honeywell’s proposed instruction 

stated in part: “Many factors are relevant in assessing the medical probability that any 

alleged asbestos exposure was a substantial factor in causing an injury.” (Italics added.) 

If this instruction had accurately reflected the approach adopted in Rutherford, the 

italicized language in the foregoing quote would have been replaced by the following 

underlined wording so that it read: 

Many factors are relevant in assessing a reasonable medical probability that 

any alleged asbestos exposure was a substantial factor contributing to his 

risk of developing cancer.
23.

As clarified in Rutherford, proving that exposures contributed to the risk of 

developing cancer and is different from proving such exposures were a substantial factor 

in causing the cancer. Honeywell’s proposed instruction erred by eliminating the concept 

of contributing to the risk of developing cancer and replacing it with causing cancer. As 

a result, the proposed instruction did not fit accurately with our Supreme Court’s special 

rule for proving causation in asbestos-related cancer cases. (See Rutherford, supra, 16 

Cal.4th at pp. 976-977.) Stated another way, the proposed instruction was not tailored to 

the special rule and, as a result, was inaccurate and misleading. Therefore, we conclude 

the trial court properly rejected Honeywell’s proposed instruction. (See Soule, supra, 8 

Cal.4th at p. 572 [party entitled to have proposed instruction given only if it is correct].)

III. EVIDENTIARY ERROR

A. Martin Letter

1. Contents of Letter

Plaintiffs offered as an exhibit the Martin letter, which was dated September 12, 

1966, and addressed to Noel Hendry at Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos Limited, the 

company that supplied asbestos to Bendix.12 The body of the Martin letter stated:

“Just to be sure you have a copy, an article that appeared in Chemical Week 

magazine is [e]nclosed. [¶] So that you’ll know that Asbestos is not the 

only contaminate, [sic] a second article from O.P. & D Reporter assess[es] 

a share of the blame on trees. 

“My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while 

working with asbestos products why not die from it. There’s got to be 

some cause.” 

The parties characterize the sarcasm in the final paragraph differently. Plaintiffs 

argued its shows a Bendix employee was aware that exposure to asbestos could cause 

 

12 The Johns-Manville asbestos mine in Quebec has been described by our Supreme 

Court as one of the world’s largest sources of chrysotile asbestos. (Webb, supra, 63 

Cal.4th at p. 178.) 
24.

death. Honeywell interpreted the letter as “nothing more than a sarcastic expression of 

confidence in a product ingredient by a corporate employee who was not an officer, 

director or managing agent of Bendix.” 

2. Proceedings Involving the Letter

Before trial, Honeywell filed a motion in limine requesting the Martin letter be 

excluded on the grounds it was inadmissible hearsay, unauthenticated, irrelevant and 

highly prejudicial. On the first day of the trial proceedings, the trial court heard argument 

on the motion and, the next day, informed counsel of its ruling. The court stated it would 

admit the Martin letter “in its present form, with a limiting instruction that the only use of 

the document is whether or not that document put ... Bendix ... on notice of the danger 

of asbestos.” The court allowed the document to be presented as evidence contradicting 

Honeywell’s position that Bendix did not become aware of the dangers associated with 

asbestos until later in the 1960’s or in the 1970’s.

Pursuant to its ruling, the trial court gave a limiting instruction about the purposes 

for which various documents, including the Martin letter, could be used by the jury. The 

limiting instruction was given prior to the closing arguments of counsel and stated:

“Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard about and seen certain documents 

from the Friction Materials Standards Institute (FMSI), Bendix, JohnsManville, the Asbestos Information Association, news media, and other 

sources. You may consider those documents and the statements contained 

in those documents only in deciding the issue of whether Bendix had notice 

of matters discussed in the statements and for impeachment. [¶] Those 

specific documents will be Exhibits 783, 376, 792, 793, 874, 799, 808, 149, 

810, 822, 2722, and 2723 and be contained in a separate binder. [¶] You 

may not use the documents and statements as independent proof that the 

statements in those documents are true.”13 

In his opening statement, counsel for plaintiffs referred to the Martin letter, stating 

“it’s going to be hard to dispute that Bendix knew before Mr. Phillips ever touched a 

 

13 The Martin letter was designated trial exhibit No. 783. 
25.

brake that asbestos can cause disease and can kill you. We’re going to prove that. [¶] 

Bendix admits people will die from asbestos. September 12th, 1966. We will show that 

to you, that they had knowledge. They knew that asbestos fibers could kill.” Counsel 

continued by listing other dates to the jury, stating: “October 16th, 1966, Bendix knows 

that asbestos is linked to cancer. [¶] January 7th, 1969, Johns-Manville tells Bendix 

asbestos causes mesothelioma. Johns-Manville was a supplier of asbestos fibers to 

Bendix.” 

The jury heard the last paragraph of the Martin letter during the presentation of a 

video deposition of Honeywell’s corporate representative, Joel Cohen. During that 

deposition, plaintiffs’ counsel asked about when Bendix first had an indication that 

asbestos could cause disease. Cohen stated, “I can tell you that in 1968 [Bendix] did 

receive this letter [from Johns-Manville], and I believe that’s what put [Bendix] on 

notice.” 

During closing argument, plaintiffs’ counsel referred to Cohen’s testimony and 

challenged the accuracy of Cohen’s date of notice by stating: “You saw this letter; right? 

[¶] September 12th, 1966. This is E.A. Martin’s letter, the director of purchasing at the 

New York plant.” Counsel then read the final paragraph of the letter and stated: “They 

knew. They knew. 1966. What is it, ’68 or ’66? The facts changed. They got to be 

forthright with you. That’s what a reasonable company does. [¶] So were they 

negligent? Yes. The answer to question 2 [on the special verdict form], we feel we’ve 

shown enough to show that they were negligent; okay?” 

Later in his closing argument, plaintiffs’ counsel again quoted the final paragraph 

of the Martin letter to support his argument that Bendix “knew in 1966 that asbestos 

could kill. They knew that.” Counsel asked, “what’s the significance of 1966? It’s one 

year before James Phillips ever touches a brake. They knew.” 

Honeywell’s counsel also addressed the Martin letter in his closing argument. He 

quoted the trial court’s limiting instruction and then stated: 
26.

“Now let me talk about the E.A. Martin letter. [¶] This is a letter that you 

heard read, and essentially it’s from a purchasing agent. Yes, he calls 

himself director of purchasing. He’s not a director of the corporation. He’s 

not a corporate director. He’s not a CEO. He’s not a CFO.

“This is --- essentially, this letter is like that one bad e-mail that all of us 

has written at one time. Is it fair to judge an entire company based on one 

letter from someone who orders supplies? That’s what the question is for 

you.

“What he did is he bought raw asbestos from a supplier. He makes no 

references to brakes. What he’s saying, if you read the letter, is he’s 

saying, ‘I know. Everyone’s talking about asbestos lately. We’re not 

concerned.’ He makes a joke. He says, you know, maybe the problem is 

trees or something; who knows. And he’s making a sarcastic comment. 

The sarcastic comment is, huh, you know, you made a good living from 

asbestos; you might as well die from it.

“He’s talking about himself. He made a good – in part he’s talking about 

himself. He made a good living from asbestos. He’s – the joke is, the 

sarcastic remark – it’s like saying boy, is it cold out here on a day like 

today when it’s nice and hot. He’s saying the opposite. He’s saying we’re 

not worried about it like, yes, as if we’re worried about it.

“And that, again, is not evidence of any notice of a problem with brakes. 

It’s a discussion of raw asbestos used in the plant, no discussion about 

brakes.” 

In his rebuttal, plaintiffs’ counsel responded to Honeywell’s argument that 

Martin’s letter was a sarcastic comment or a joke sent to a buddy, by stating “that’s a 

terrible joke to make if you’re buying asbestos and selling it. That’s a terrible joke to 

make.” 

Also, during the punitive damages phase of the trial, plaintiffs’ counsel repeated 

his argument about the Martin letter showing Bendix knew asbestos was hazardous in 

1966. Honeywell’s counsel responded as follows:

“So let’s talk about the E.A. Martin letter. E.A. Martin, larger than life, a 

letter written or reportedly written in September of 1966, to a colleague at 

Johns-Manville, the same company that three years later said that their 

research indicated there was no problem from a health perspective with 

asbestos in brakes, is writing in response to an article that appeared in a 
27.

magazine. And he does make the statement, if he wrote the letter, ‘If you 

have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die 

from it.’

“Mr. Martin was a director of purchases. He wasn’t a member of the board 

of directors of the Bendix Corporation. He wasn’t an officer of the 

corporation. He wasn’t a manager of the corporation. You’ve seen no 

evidence that anyone at the Bendix Corporation saw this letter, acted in 

response to this letter, did anything to approve or ratify the comments that 

were made, these personal comments, if they were made, of Mr. Martin. 

And you see that this letter is not signed, and that there’s handwriting on 

the letter. But if he wrote the letter, there’s nothing to indicate that anyone 

at Bendix did anything in a malicious or oppressive way or reprehensible 

way, with knowledge of that letter.

“Mr. Martin, you really have heard no evidence about Mr. Martin, other 

than he was a director of purchases for a facility. He bought asbestos from 

a supplier. He was not responsible for health and safety of the Bendix 

Corporation. You certainly heard no evidence about that. But this letter is 

used as the re[e]d on which to build the case for the punitive damage award 

that’s being sought in this case. [¶] That letter doesn’t rise to that level.” 

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s final summation to the jury responded to Honeywell’s 

argument about the Martin letter and emphasized what evidence had been presented and 

what evidence was not presented. Counsel stated, “You have tangible pieces of evidence 

of what Bendix knew and what they did. And what you don’t have is an explanation as 

to why. And they chose in this case not to bring anybody to explain that.” Counsel 

illustrated this point by stating that no evidence was presented as to what Bendix’s health 

and safety director did from 1966 through 1975. 

3. Authentication 

Honeywell’s appellate briefing does not raise the lack of authentication as a 

separate issue on appeal and does not cite Evidence Code section 1400, which governs 

the authentication of writings.14 We note, however, Honeywell’s briefs state that it 

 

14 “Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to 

sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) 
28.

challenged the admission of the Martin letter in the trial court on the ground the letter was 

not authenticated. For purposes of clarity, we state why authentication is not an issue

addressed in this opinion. Specifically, the statements in Honeywell’s brief were 

insufficient to raise the issue of authentication for purposes of this appeal. 

By rule, an appellant’s brief must “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or 

subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, 

by citation of authority.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) When a potential 

issue or argument is not presented to an appellate court in a separate heading or 

subheading, that issue or argument is deemed forfeited. (Foster v. Britton (2015) 242 

Cal.App.4th 920, 928, fn. 6; see People v. Roscoe (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 829, 840 

[purpose of rule].)

Here, the admission of the Martin letter into evidence is challenged by Honeywell 

on the grounds stated in the following heading: “The trial court erroneously admitted the 

Martin letter, which was not relevant and unduly prejudiced the jury against 

Honeywell.”15 (Boldface omitted.) Based on the contents of the briefs, the rule of court, 

and the case law applying that rule, we conclude Honeywell has not challenged the 

authentication of the Martin letter in this appeal. 

4. Relevancy: Governing Principles

Evidence Code section 350 provides that “[n]o evidence is admissible except 

relevant evidence.” “Relevant evidence” is defined as “evidence, including evidence 

relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in 

reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination 

of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.) 

 

the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law.” (Evid. Code, § 

1400.) 

15 The exact same heading appears in Honeywell’s opening brief and its reply brief. 
29.

Relevant evidence includes circumstantial evidence that tends to establish a fact 

from which the existence or nonexistence of the fact in issue can be inferred. (Firlotte v. 

Jessee (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 207, 210.) The modifier “circumstantial” is used to 

emphasize the need to draw inferences from the evidence. (1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th 

ed. 2012) Circumstantial Evidence, § 1.) “An inference is a deduction of fact that may 

logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise 

established in the action.” (Evid. Code, § 600, subd. (b).) 

5. Analysis of Relevancy

Honeywell contends the Martin letter “was clearly irrelevant. It did not establish 

that Bendix had notice of any material fact.” Honeywell also complains that the Martin 

letter was introduced into evidence without the enclosed article, stating: “The enclosed 

article referred only to medical conditions not at issue here (asbestosis and lung cancer) 

and said nothing about any risks known, or even suspected, from the small amounts of 

chrysotile asbestos in brake dust.” 

Ordinarily, arguments about whether circumstantial evidence is relevant to the 

litigation are structured by (1) identifying a disputed material fact and (2) analyzing 

whether the evidence in question reasonably supports an inference about the existence or 

nonexistence of that disputed fact. Here, Honeywell’s arguments do not accurately 

complete the first step and, lacking this grounding, fail to demonstrate that the Martin 

letter had no relevancy to any of the disputed material facts.

The first step—identifying disputed material facts—begins with an examination of 

the allegations made in the first amended complaint. Paragraph 7 of plaintiffs’ first 

amended complaint alleged the defendants negligently and carelessly researched the 

health hazards of their products. Paragraph 8 of the first amended complaint alleged the 

defendants breached a duty to exercise reasonable care by failing to investigate the 

hazards of their product and by failing to warn of the health hazards of using their 
30.

products. These allegations about the failure to research or investigate health hazards 

raises a question about when Bendix became aware of facts that would cause a reasonable 

person to conduct a further inquiry into the safety of its products. Therefore, we 

conclude that when Bendix became aware (i.e., had notice) of facts that would cause of 

reasonable person to conduct a further inquiry is a disputed material fact in this litigation. 

The dispute continued beyond the pleading stage and became more specific by the 

time it was presented to the jury. Plaintiffs contended that in 1966 Bendix was on notice 

of potential health hazards that should have triggered further research and investigation. 

This timing was disputed by Cohen, Honeywell’s representative, when he testified that a 

1968 letter from Johns-Manville first put Bendix on notice that asbestos could cause 

disease. Therefore, the dispute about the material fact of notice extended to whether 

Bendix was aware of potential health hazards in 1966. 

The second step of our inquiry considers whether the Martin letter reasonably 

supports an inference that Bendix’s management was aware of the potential health 

hazards of airborne asbestos before 1968. We conclude the Martin letter reasonably 

supports an inference about Bendix’s awareness and, therefore, the letter is relevant 

circumstantial evidence. (Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (Fla.App. 2009) 23

So.3d 867, 870 (Guilder) [Martin letter “was relevant to proving Honeywell’s knowledge 

of the dangers of asbestos in its products”].) As to foundational matters, the jury 

reasonably could have found that Martin drafted the letter and was aware of the magazine 

article about asbestos. Next, the jury reasonably could infer that (1) questions about the 

safety of asbestos were known generally within the asbestos industry and (2) Bendix’s 

management was not more ignorant than Martin about these questions, which had serious 

business implications for a company selling asbestos products. Thus, the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in determining the Martin letter was relevant circumstantial 

evidence. 
31.

Honeywell’s attempt to bolster its argument of irrelevancy by stating the attached 

article said nothing specifically about small amounts of chrysotile or about brake dust is 

unconvincing. The article was not presented to the jury, but is part of the appellate 

record. The article (1) addressed the dangers of airborne asbestos, (2) referred to the 

impact of airborne asbestos on “all Americans, ... even though most of them never 

worked directly with asbestos,” (3) mentioned chrysotile was the form of asbestos that 

held the predominant market position, and (4) included a list of the sources of airborne 

asbestos that referred to motor vehicle braking linings and clutch plates. The article’s 

actual references to chrysotile asbestos and brake linings in connection with the hazards 

presented by airborne asbestos encompassed contradicts Honeywell’s argument that the 

article was irrelevant to its product and, therefore, the Martin letter was irrelevant to the 

potential health hazards associated with its brakes. In short, Honeywell’s argument that it 

needed information very specific to brakes and chrysotile before it could become aware 

of potential health hazards of its product is as unconvincing to us as it was to the jury. 

As to the relevance of the sarcastic last paragraph, its reference to dying from 

asbestos tends to prove that the author was aware that the article was asserting a causal 

connection between the exposure to airborne asbestos and health impacts that could result 

in death. The possibility that the author believed the assertions were false or wildly 

exaggerated does not undercut his awareness that assertions were being made about 

potential health hazards. The knowledge or awareness that assertions about health 

impacts serious enough to cause death was relevant plaintiffs’ allegation that Bendix 

breached the duty of reasonable care by failing to investigate the hazards of its products. 

For example, plaintiffs’ counsel argued to the jury: “A reasonable company should 

research the potential health hazards of their products. That’s reasonable.” (Italics 

added.) Counsel supported this argument by referring to deposition testimony of Eugene 
32.

Rogers16 stating he did not know if Bendix ever spent any money on the health effects of 

asbestos during any time frame. Therefore, we reject Honeywell’s argument that the last 

paragraph of the Martin letter “had nothing to do with ‘notice.’”17 

In summary, we conclude that the Martin letter was circumstantial evidence 

relevant to the issues identified in the trial court’s limiting instruction, which restricted 

use of the letter and other documents to “whether Bendix had notice of matters discussed 

in the statements and for impeachment.” In other words, the existence of the Martin 

letter made it more probable, rather than less probable, that Bendix’s management was 

aware of the questions being raised about the safety of asbestos. 

6. Prejudice: Governing Principles

The admissibility of relevant evidence is subject to various statutory exceptions. 

(Evid. Code, § 351; see e.g., Evid. Code §§ 952 [lawyer-client privilege], 1200 

[hearsay].) The exception Honeywell raises in this appeal is set forth in Evidence Code 

section 352, which vests the trial court with discretion to “exclude evidence if its 

probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) 

necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue 

prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” This exception to 

admissibility has not been interpreted to create hard and fast rules, but requires the trial 

 

16 Rogers started working part-time for Bendix in 1944 and, after receiving his 

master’s degree in chemical engineering, began working full-time in July 1951 as a resin 

development chemist. Rogers received many promotions during the course of his 

employment with Bendix, including promotions to quality control manager (1956), 

assistant factor manager (1963), supervisory engineer for materials and processes, senior 

staff engineer (1980), and manager of product engineering (1981). The deposition of 

Rogers was taken in 1984, while he was still employed by Bendix. 

17 The term “notice” was many definitions. (See Black’s Law Dict. (9th ed. 2009) 

pp. 1164-1165.) In this case, it was used by plaintiffs to refer to what Bendix knew. For 

example, the reporter’s transcript contains many instances where, in reference to the 

notice issue, plaintiffs’ counsel addressed what Bendix knew and argued Bendix “knew 

that asbestos fibers could kill.” 
33.

court to complete a weighing process (i.e., probative value versus undue prejudice) that 

considers the unique facts and issues of the case. (Aguayo v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.

(1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1038.)

The “undue prejudice” mentioned in Evidence Code section 352 refers to evidence 

which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the party as an individual and 

which has very little effect on the issues—it is not synonymous with “damaging.” 

(People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638.) In general, evidence is substantially more 

prejudicial than probative if it creates an intolerable risk to the fairness of the proceedings 

or the reliability of the outcome. (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 805.)

The trial court’s determination of undue prejudice is subject to review under the 

abuse of discretion standard. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 

147.) When weighing probative value against the danger of prejudice, a trial court is 

deemed to have abused its discretion if its decision was arbitrary, capricious, or patently 

absurd and resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (Id. at p. 150.) The 

circumstances the trial court may consider includes whether the trial court believes, based 

on the particular facts, that the jury can follow a limiting instruction about how the 

evidence in question may be used. (Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 598.) 

As a general rule, juries are presumed to follow a trial court’s limiting instructions. 

(Ibid.) “Whether it would be impossible for a jury to follow limiting instructions is 

determined by the circumstances of each case, primarily in the trial court’s discretion 

under Evidence Code section 352.” (Id. at p. 599.)

7. Analysis of Prejudice

Honeywell argues that if the Martin letter was somehow relevant, it should have 

been excluded because of the danger of unfair prejudice. Honeywell contends the last 
34.

paragraph of the Martin letter18 “was so prejudicial, and bore so little relevance to the 

case, that is should have been excluded.” 

Honeywell supports its argument of undue prejudice by citing two appellate 

decisions in which the Martin letter was admitted into evidence and the appellate court 

ordered a new trial. (See Guilder, supra, 23 So.3d at p. 870 [prejudice from Martin letter 

was one ground for granting new trial]; Dukes, supra, 900 N.E.2d at pp. 1134-1135, 

1138-1139 [error to allow entire Martin letter into evidence as an admission by Bendix].)

Plaintiffs argue (1) the Martin letter was relevant to the dispute about notice of the 

hazards of airborne asbestos, (2) the limiting instruction protected against the improper 

use of the Martin letter, (3) the arguments of Honeywell’s counsel to the jury undermined 

the limiting instruction and invited the jury to consider it for other purposes, and (4) the 

out-of-state cases relied upon by Honeywell are distinguishable because, among other 

things, they did not involve California law or a limiting instruction. 

In response, Honeywell argues that the analyses in Guilder and Dukes applied 

basic principles of prejudice that apply equally in California and the limiting “instruction 

did not come close to diminishing the tendency of the letter to inflame the passion and 

prejudice of the jury.” Honeywell notes the court did not instruct the jury to disregard the 

sarcastic statement in the Martin letter and, by telling the jury to consider the letter on the 

issue of notice, erroneously implied that the last paragraph was relevant to that issue. 

Honeywell has a difficult task in carrying its burden of affirmatively 

demonstrating the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion for two main reasons. 

(See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [appellants must affirmatively 

demonstrate error].) First, the abuse of discretion standard is a deferential standard of 

 

18 That paragraph stated: “My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good 

life while working with asbestos products why not die from it. There’s got to be some 

cause.” 
35.

review. Second, Honeywell must overcome the presumption that juries follow limiting 

instructions. 

Based on the circumstances of this case, we reach the following conclusions. 

First, contrary to Honeywell’s argument, the last paragraph was relevant to the notice 

issues presented in this case. Second, the limiting instruction and other factors 

distinguish this case from the analysis of prejudice adopted in Guilder and Dukes. Third, 

Honeywell has failed to overcome the presumption that the jury followed the trial court’s 

limiting instruction. 

As to the relevancy of the last paragraph, we conclude the paragraph was relevant 

to the disputed issues in this case because it showed Martin understood the assertions 

about the potential health hazards of airborne asbestos because he comments, albeit 

sarcastically, on the claim that asbestos can cause death. In Dukes, the court stated that 

the Martin “letter is a revealing historical anecdote that may give us insight into the 

thinking within the asbestos industry in 1966, but was irrelevant.” (Dukes, supra, 900

N.E.2d at p. 1139.) Thus, the court recognized a trier of fact reasonably could infer from 

Martin’s awareness of claim about health hazards related to asbestos that others working 

in the asbestos industry also were aware of the health claims. The court in Dukes was 

persuaded that “whatever probative value [the Martin letter] had was outweighed by its 

prejudicial effect.” (Ibid.) This determination about probative value and prejudicial 

effect has little meaning outside the particular issues being litigated in Dukes. The 

decedent in that case had worked from 1954 to 1961 at a Union Asbestos & Rubber 

Company plant, but had never worked for Bendix and had never been exposed to 

asbestos from a Bendix product. (Id. at p. 1131.) The plaintiffs included Honeywell as a 

defendant on the theory that Bendix had engaged in a conspiracy with the other 

defendants. (Ibid.) They alleged the defendants had agreed to positively assert it was 

safe for people to work with asbestos and also had agreed to suppress information about 

the harmful effects of asbestos. (Ibid.) The plaintiffs also alleged the acts in furtherance 
36.

of that conspiracy were a proximate cause of the decedent’s illness and death. (Ibid.) 

The trial court allowed the Martin letter into evidence in its entirety as an admission by 

Bendix, which implies the trial court concluded the letter was evidence of the existence 

of a conspiracy. (Id. at p. 1135.) 

The Illinois appellate court stated the Martin letter was “no more than a note from 

one business acquaintance to another and not an expression of corporate policy or proof 

of any conspiracy.” (Dukes, supra, 900 N.E.2d at p. 1139.) Thus, the Martin letter was 

not offered in Dukes to show when Bendix became aware of claims that airborne asbestos 

was potentially hazardous to health, but was offered to support an inference that Bendix 

and its asbestos supplier, Johns-Manville, were engaged in a conspiracy to suppress 

information. The appellate court’s determination that the Martin letter was irrelevant to 

proving a conspiracy does not bear directly on its relevance to the notice or awareness 

issue disputed in this case. Also, no limiting instruction was given in Dukes. 

In the Florida case, the trial court denied Honeywell’s motion in limine to exclude 

or redact the Martin letter. (Guilder, supra, 23 So.3d at p. 869.) The jury awarded 

damages of over $24 million the plaintiff and his children. (Ibid.) On appeal, Honeywell 

argued the trial court erred by (1) admitting the irrelevant, highly prejudicial Martin 

letter, (2) excluding nonparties from the verdict form that apportioned liability or fault 

among the entities who contributed to the injuries, and (3) allowing the children to 

recover for the loss of parental consortium. (Ibid.) As previously described, the 

appellate court in Guilder, like this court, concluded the Martin letter was relevant to the 

issue presented, stating: “Here, the Bendix employee’s letter to an asbestos supplier 

written in the late 1960’s was relevant to proving Honeywell’s knowledge of the dangers 

of asbestos in its products.” (Id. at p. 870.) The court then quoted the last paragraph of 

the Martin letter, found that portion was unfairly prejudicial, and concluded the trial court 

erred in refusing to redact that portion of the letter. (Ibid.) The court also agreed with 
37.

Honeywell’s other two claims of error, reversed the judgment, and remanded for a new 

trial. (Id. at p. 871.) 

In Guilder, the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s. 

In contrast, Phillips’s first performed brake work in 1967, which increases the relevance 

(i.e., the probative value of the Martin letter), which affects one side of the scales in the 

weighing process (i.e., probative value versus undue prejudice) conducted under 

Evidence Code section 352. Furthermore, no limiting instruction was given in Guilder. 

These two factors are sufficient to distinguish Guilder and, along with our earlier analysis 

of the relevance of the last paragraph, lead us to conclude the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by admitting the Martin letter into evidence.

B. Expert Testimony on Causation

1. Contentions of the Parties

Honeywell contends that the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to hear expert 

testimony on a speculative theory of causation. Honeywell argues that Dr. Brodkin’s 

“every identified exposure” theory was indistinguishable for the every-exposure theory 

excluded by the trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine.19 In addition, Honeywell 

argues that Dr. Brodkin’s testimony was inadmissible under Sargon Enterprises Inc. v. 

University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747 (Sargon) and was legally invalid 

under Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th 953. 

Plaintiffs contend the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Dr. 

Brodkin’s opinion testimony about causation. They point out that the Second District 

rejected Honeywell’s very same argument in Davis, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th 477—

another appeal involving Bendix brakes and a decedent who developed mesothelioma. 

 

19 Other common labels for the every-exposure theory are the “‘any exposure’” 

theory and “any fiber” theory. (Davis, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 480.) 
38.

2. Standard of Review

Generally, a trial court’s rulings relating to expert testimony is reviewed for an 

abuse of discretion. (Sargon, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 773.) In Sargon, the court stated: 

“A ruling that constitutes an abuse of discretion has been described as one that is ‘so 

irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.’” (Ibid.; cf. County 

of Kern v. T.C.E.F., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 301, 316 [abuse of discretion occurs 

when lower court exceeds the bounds of reason].) In addition, the trial court’s discretion 

“must be exercised within the confines of the applicable legal principles.” (Saragon, 

supra, at p. 773.) 

One set of legal principles applicable to the admission of expert testimony 

provides for the exclusion of “expert opinion testimony that is (1) based on matter of a 

type on which an expert may not reasonably rely, (2) based on reasons unsupported by 

the material on which the expert relies, or (3) speculative.” (Saragon, supra, 55 Cal.4th 

at pp. 771-772; see Evid. Code, §§ 801, 802.) Stated another way, “the court must simply 

determine whether the matter relied on can provide a reasonable basis for the opinion or 

whether that opinion is based on a leap of logic or conjecture. The court does not resolve 

scientific controversies.” (Id. at p. 772.) 

Another applicable legal principle that confined the trial court’s discretion is our 

Supreme Court’s special rule for proving causation in cases alleging asbestos-related 

cancer. “[T]he plaintiff may meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendant’s 

product was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical 

probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff’s or decedent’s risk of 

developing cancer.” (Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 982-983.) 

3. Ruling on Motion in Limine

Honeywell’s third motion in limine requested an order precluding Dr. Brodkin 

“from presenting expert opinion testimony or argument that (1) each and every exposure 
39.

to asbestos above so-called background levels, and (2) exposure to brake dust from 

Bendix brakes contributed to [Phillips’s] mesothelioma.” The trial court discussed the 

motion in limine with counsel and stated its “intention was to grant [regarding] the 

causation testimony of Carl Brodkin as it applied to the every contact theory.” 

Plaintiffs’ counsel responded: “Yeah. I got to be real careful with this one, your 

Honor. [¶] I’m okay with that language. In other words, Mr. – or Dr. Brodkin will not 

stand up and say, ‘Each and every exposure to asbestos caused his mesothelioma.’ He 

will not say that. That’s not his testimony.” Counsel further stated that “we will go in 

great detail on direct on these particular exposures [relating to Bendix and Calaveras] and 

at what level do these exposures increase one’s risk and cause disease.” After counsel’s 

statements, the trial court said, “Defendants – so my narrow ruling on this is I’m 

excluding testimony about every exposure or an every exposure theory.” This ruling 

amounts to a determination by the trial court that it would be conjecture (not a reasonable 

medical certainty) for an expert to testify that every exposure to asbestos was a 

substantial factor contributing to the risk of Phillips developing cancer. 

4. Dr. Brodkin’s Testimony

During direct examination, Dr. Brodkin was asked whether it is possible to 

separate an exposure from a series of identified exposures and say one did not have 

anything to do with the disease and another one caused it. Dr. Brodkin answered:

“No. There really isn’t a scientifically valid way to do that, because in this 

case, the disease I came to diagnose was mesothelioma. That is what we 

call a dose-response disease. The greater the dose of asbestos, the greater 

the risk for a disease like mesothelioma.

“So the identified exposures result in an increase in the body’s burden of 

asbestos. And it’s the cumulative exposure, all of those exposures that 

result in disease risk in terms of the identified exposure.

“Now, there were many things in Mr. Phillips’ history I did not identify. 

He had worked with installing boilers after 1974 that typically would not be 

asbestos-containing. He worked on valves and pumps in homes that were 
40.

what we call ambient temperature. They weren’t very hot. Those typically 

wouldn’t be asbestos-containing.

“So many of his --- the materials he worked with, I did not identify. But in 

terms of the identified asbestos exposures, they would each contribute to 

Mr. Phillips’ cumulative exposure that resulted in a disease like 

mesothelioma.” 

The exposures to Bendix brakes identified by Dr. Brodkin were based on the 

deposition testimony of Phillips. They included (1) the regular exposures during the 

period (1969-1971) Phillips worked as an automotive mechanic and averaged about one 

brake job per week and (2) the intermittent exposures from 1967 through the 1980’s 

when Phillips worked on his personal vehicles and the vehicles of friends. Dr. Brodkin 

also considered how Phillips handled the brakes, how those activities created airborne 

asbestos, and what concentrations of airborne asbestos might be generated. Those 

activities included Phillips using an airhose to clean the residual brake dust from the 

brake drum, grinding the brakes with a hand file, and using sandpaper to edge the brakes 

and take off the glazing. Dr. Brodkin stated that Phillips’s ability to see dust during his 

work was an indication of a very significant exposure, with a high concentration of 

asbestos per cubic foot of air. 

Ultimately, Dr. Brodkin was asked whether Phillips’s work with Bendix brakes 

over the course of his lifetime was a substantial contributing factor to the cause of his 

disease. Dr. Brodkin answered:

“Yes, it would be. Because it’s an important ... component of his entire 

cumulative exposure to asbestos. ... [H]e was doing this professionally, 

regularly for a two-year period. He was doing it intermittently for almost a 

20-year period between the late ‘60s through the 1980s. So it’s an 

important component part of his cumulative exposure, and as such is a 

substantial contributing factor in his development of mesothelioma.” 

Also, Dr. Brodkin was asked whether every time someone is exposed to asbestos 

that exposure is a substantial factor in causing a disease. He answered, “No.” He 

explained his answer by stating:
41.

“I think the evidence strongly is against the notion that each and every 

asbestos fiber increases risk for disease. That’s never been my opinion, and 

I don’t think the science supports that. It takes significant exposures, for 

example, these exposures in an occupational setting, orders of magnitude 

higher than ambient levels, very high levels that overcome the body’s 

defenses, add to the body’s burden of asbestos that increases risk for 

disease.” 

Thus, Dr. Brodkin explicitly stated that his opinion was not based on an everyexposure theory. 

5. Distinction Between Every Exposure and Identified Exposures

Honeywell describes the every-exposure theory of causation as stating that “every 

exposure to asbestos fibers is a substantial factor in causing disease, regardless of fiber 

type or dose, so long as the fibers are traceable to a product and are not merely 

‘background’ fibers found in the ambient air.” Honeywell contends that Dr. Brodkin’s 

testimony about “every identified exposure” was the functional equivalent or 

indistinguishable from the every-exposure theory. 

We reject Honeywell’s argument that the every-exposure theory of causation is the 

equivalent of Dr. Brodkin’s causation testimony about every identified exposure. Our 

rejection of that argument is based on the content of Dr. Brodkin’s testimony, which is 

quoted or described in the previous section. We need not repeat that testimony in detail 

as it speaks for itself in describing how the identified-exposure theory is a more rigorous 

standard of causation than the every-exposure theory. As a single example of the 

difference, we note Dr. Brodkin’s statement that it “takes significant exposures” to 

increase the risk of disease. This statement uses the plural “exposures” and also requires 

that those exposures be “significant.” The use of “significant” as a limiting modifier 

appears to be connected to Dr. Brodkin’s earlier testimony about the concentrations of 

airborne asbestos created by particular activities done by Phillips, such as filing, sanding 

and using an airhose to clean a brake drum. 
42.

The foregoing evaluation of Honeywell’s arguments about the every-exposure 

theory is not unique. An appellate court in Ohio recently stated: 

“Contrary to Honeywell’s position, Dr. Bedrossian’s causation opinion was 

not premised on a rigid application of the “each and every exposure” 

theory. Although some courts have rejected the “each and every exposure” 

theory, others have distinguished testimony suggesting a de minimis 

exposure to asbestos could cause mesothelioma from testimony that each 

significant exposure to asbestos could be a cause. [Citation.]” (Schwartz v. 

Honeywell International, Inc. (Ohio App. 2016) 66 N.E.2d 118, 126.) 

Similarly, the court in Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (N.D.Ill. 2014) 23 

F.Supp.3d 914, recognized a difference “between pointing to a minor exposure to 

asbestos and claiming causation in a conclusory fashion and identifying, through use of 

expert testimony, a significant and sustained exposure in the plaintiff’s history.” (Id. at p. 

920; see Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (La. App. 2014) 168 So.3d 556 

[trial court erred in excluding expert’s testimony that each “special exposure” to asbestos 

constituted a significant contributing factor in the development of decedent’s 

mesothelioma and in prohibiting expert from giving definition to “special exposure”].)

6. Violation of Order Granting Motion in Limine

As a second contention of trial court error, Honeywell states the trial “court should 

have granted [its] motion to strike Dr. Brodkin’s ‘every identified exposure’ testimony 

because it advanced the every exposure theory under a different name and thereby 

violated the court’s order” granting Honeywell’s motion in limine. 

Our conclusion that there is a legitimate distinction between the every-exposure 

theory and the identified-exposure theory of causation presented in this case necessarily 

leads to the rejection of this contention. Honeywell asserts, in effect, that the trial court 

violated its own order on the motion in limine by allowing Dr. Brodkin’s testimony about 

causation resulting from every identified exposure. Honeywell’s interpretation of the 

court’s order is not accurate. The court itself described its ruling granting the motion as 

“narrow.” It is possible to interpret this narrowness as eliminating the every-exposure 
43.

theory while still allowing Dr. Brodkin’s testimony about the substantial, identified 

exposures that were experienced by Phillips.

Based on our conclusions that (1) Dr. Brodkin’s opinion was not based on an 

every-exposure theory and (2) the trial court did not violate its own ruling by allowing 

that opinion testimony, we need not reach Honeywell’s arguments that the analysis of the 

every-exposure theory adopted in Davis was wrong and should be rejected by this court. 

IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE: FAILURE TO WARN CLAIMS*

A. Basic Principles Governing Warnings

Generally, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazard inherent 

in their products. (Webb, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 181.) The purpose of a warning is to 

inform consumers about hazards of which they are unaware, so that they can avoid the 

product or minimize the danger by careful use. (Ibid.) “[L]iability for failure to warn is 

conditioned on the manufacturer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the risk.” (Ibid.) 

Thus, a manufacturer “has a duty to warn about product risks that are known or knowable 

in light of available medical and scientific knowledge.” (Ibid.)

California law recognizes separate failure to warn claims under strict liability and 

negligence theories. (Webb, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 181.) In general terms, the elements 

of a strict liability cause of action based on a failure to warn are the failure to warn of a 

hazard inherent in the product, causation and injury. (Nelson v. Superior Court (2006) 

144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695; see CACI No. 1205.) The elements of a negligence claim 

against a manufacturer for failing to warn of a product’s dangers also include causation 

and harm. (CACI No. 1222.) The differences in the elements of each theory is not 

relevant to this appeal. 

 

* See footnote, ante, page 1.
44.

B. Contentions of the Parties

1. Honeywell’s Contentions

Honeywell contends it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiffs 

failed to prove that a different or better warning would have made a difference. Proof 

that a warning would have made a difference addresses the causation element and 

establishes a link between the failure to give a warning and the injuries. (See Huitt v. 

Southern California Gas Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1586, 1602.) Honeywell argues 

proof of the causation element is missing in this case: 

“Plaintiffs’ counsel never asked Phillips to say he would have changed his 

behavior in response to different instructions or warnings from Bendix. It 

was their burden to prove that point .... The record indicates that Phillips 

could not honestly say he would have heeded the warning advocated by 

plaintiffs.” 

Honeywell contends Phillips’s attitude towards instructions and warnings was 

established by his decisions to start and continuing smoking despite the warnings on 

cigarette packages and by his testimony stating, “I never read instructions. You’re a man; 

you know how it is.” In Honeywell’s view, this testimony shows conclusively that 

Bendix could not have changed Phillips’s behavior by providing warnings because 

Phillips would not have read and followed them. 

2. Plaintiffs’ Contentions

Plaintiffs contend that Honeywell’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is 

reviewed under the substantial evidence standard and, as a result, plaintiffs are entitled to 

have all evidentiary conflicts resolved in their favor and receive the benefit of every 

reasonable inference. Plaintiffs contend the evidence allowed the jury to reasonably infer 

that if Bendix had provided an adequate warning about the hazards of asbestos in its 

brakes, Phillips would have taken steps to avoid exposure to asbestos. 

In plaintiffs’ view, Phillips’s testimony about not reading instructions can be 

interpreted in various ways and Honeywell’s interpretation takes his testimony out of 
45.

context and violates the rule requiring favorable inferences. Similarly, plaintiffs argue 

the inferences drawn by Honeywell from Phillips’s cigarette smoking and his attempts to 

stop are inappropriate because they are not the inferences most favorable to the jury’s 

findings. 

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence: Standard of Review

When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court has 

abided by the well-established principle that “all factual matters must be viewed most 

favorably to the prevailing party and in support of the judgment.” (Jimenez v. Pacific 

Western Construction Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 102, 111.) When two or more 

inferences can be deduced reasonably from the evidence presented, a reviewing court is 

without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trier of fact. (Ibid.) 

Consequently, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with the determination as 

to whether there is any substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding of fact. (Ibid.) 

Evidence is “substantial” for purposes of this standard of review if it is of ponderable 

legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (Id. at pp. 111-112.) 

In sum, plaintiffs get the benefit of every reasonable inference that can be drawn from the 

evidence and all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in their favor. (Brewer v. Murphy

(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 928, 935.) 

D. Phillips’s Cigarette Smoking

Dr. Brodkin testified that there is a strong association between cigarette smoking 

and lung cancer, but there is no association between smoking and mesothelioma. 

Honeywell does not contend the jury should have found Phillips’s smoking was a cause 

of his mesothelioma, but argues the jury should have inferred Phillips would have 

ignored asbestos warnings on brake packaging as he ignored the warnings on the 

cigarette packaging.20 

 

20 In 1965, Congress enacted a statute requiring the following warning to appear on 

all cigarette packages: “‘Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your 
46.

1. Phillips’s Testimony

Phillips began smoking when he was 17 years old and still in high school. He 

smoked Marlboro, a brand of filtered cigarette. He attempted to quit four times and last 

smoked in September 2011, before he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Phillips saw 

the warning label on the cigarettes when he started smoking and also saw the warning 

label each time he started smoking again after he had quit. As to quantity, Phillips stated 

he smoked about three quarters of a pack a day and was never a pack-a-day guy. During 

the time Phillips smoked, no doctor ever told him to stop. 

2. Inferences Reasonably Drawn from Testimony

Honeywell argues that Phillips’s testimony shows that he saw warnings on 

cigarette packages and ignored them when he decided to smoke and continued to ignore 

the warnings throughout his life when he restarted smoking. Plaintiffs offer a different 

interpretation of the testimony about smoking cigarettes. They contend the testimony 

shows that Phillips followed the warnings by attempting to quit smoking four times, even 

before a doctor told him to quit. Plaintiffs argue the fact Phillips was unsuccessful in 

stopping does not conclusively establish the inference that he ignored the warnings as to 

cigarettes or, more generally, ignored warnings of all types. 

Honeywell’s reply brief argues that plaintiffs have drawn the wrong inference 

from the testimony about Phillips smoking cigarettes. Honeywell contends: 

 

Health.’” (Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000) 529 

U.S. 120, 148.) In 1969, the federal statute was amended to require the following 

warning or a variation of it: “‘WARNING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS 

DETERMINED THAT CIGARETTE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR 

HEALTH.’” (Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992) 505 U.S. 504, 508.) This is the 

label Phillips would have seen when he began smoking around 1970. In 1984, a further 

amendment required four more explicit warnings, used on a rotating basis. (Id. at p. 508, 

fn. 1.) The current statute has nine variations of the warning. (See 15 U.S.C. § 

1333(a)(1).) 
47.

“That testimony further confirms he did not heed product warnings. He 

testified that before he started smoking cigarettes he saw the warnings on 

the packages and smoked anyway. [Citation.] A jury could not reasonably 

infer that Phillips, who smoked cigarettes knowing that they cause lung 

cancer, would have chosen not to work with brakes if he had been informed 

about the purported, theorized connection between brakes and 

mesothelioma.” 

Honeywell argues that Phillips’s statements that he attempted to quit four times is 

not evidence that he heeds warnings because no evidence was offered linking his decision 

to stop smoking with the product warning labels. Stated another way, Honeywell argues 

there is no direct evidence as to why Phillips attempted to stop smoking and the jury 

could not reasonably infer the health hazards mentioned in the warning labels were a 

motivating factor for his attempts to quit.

3. Comparing Cigarettes to Brakes

The foundation for our examination of the reasonable inferences that can be drawn 

from Phillips’s testimony about his smoking cigarettes begins with a comparison of the 

two products and their characteristics. 

First, a reason a consumer lights a cigarette and creates airborne particles in the 

form of smoke is to allow those particles to contact tissue in the consumer’s mouth and 

lungs. In contrast, the purpose of changing brakes is not to create airborne particles that 

can be inhaled for the satisfaction of the consumer, but is to maintain a vehicle in safe

operating condition.

Second, cigarettes are distinguishable from brakes because cigarettes are 

addictive. Evidence that cigarettes are addictive was not presented at trial, but this 

characteristic of cigarettes has become common knowledge. First, the federal 

requirements for the labeling of cigarette packaging include the statement: “WARNING: 

Cigarettes are addictive.” (15 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(1).) Second, in 1999, Philip Morris 

issued a statement that acknowledged cigarette smoking is addictive. (Bullock v. Philip 
48.

Morris USA, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 543, 555.)21 These sources are sufficient for 

this court to regard the addictive quality of cigarettes as within the common knowledge of 

the jurors and, thus, appropriately considered by them. 

Automotive brakes in general and asbestos-containing brakes in particular do not 

share this characteristic with cigarettes. No statute, case law, or evidence in the record 

suggests that removing and installing brakes was addictive or, alternatively, that 

breathing the particles that become airborne during the various steps for removing old 

brakes and installing new brakes is addictive.

Bearing in mind that cigarettes (1) involve the intentional inhalation of smoke and 

(2) are addictive, we turn to the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from Phillips’s 

decision to smoke and his four attempts to quit smoking. The particular inferences 

discussed pertain to how Phillips might have reacted to warnings about the risks 

associated with the asbestos in Bendix brakes. 

4. Relationship Between Warnings and Attempts to Quit Smoking

The first dispute about reasonable inferences relates to whether a jury could infer 

that the warning labels about the health hazards of cigarette smoking were a factor in 

motivating Phillips’s four attempts to quit smoking. We conclude such an inference is 

reasonable in this case. 

Jurors’ evaluation of the evidence is informed by their life experience, but they are 

not to inject their personal expertise or specialized knowledge into that evaluation. 

(CACI No. 5009; In re Malone (1996) 12 Cal.4th 935, 963.) Similarly, jurors may give 

effect to such inferences as common knowledge allows to be reasonably drawn from facts 

 

21 We recognize that the tobacco industry has not always admitted cigarettes are 

addictive. In Whiteley v. Philip Morris Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 635, the plaintiff 

submitted a 1988 press release from the Tobacco Institute titled “Claims That Cigarettes 

Are Addictive Contradict Common Sense” as an exhibit. (Id. at p. 662.) 
49.

directly proven. (75B Am.Jur.2d (2016) Trial, § 1413; see Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a) 

[expert testimony not allowed on subject within common experience of jurors].)

In this case, Phillips’s testimony about his attempts to quit smoking was elicited in 

connection with questions about the warning labels on cigarette packages. Given this 

context, one of the inferences that a jury could reasonably draw from the testimony was 

that the health concerns referred to the warnings on the cigarette packages were 

considered by Phillips and, thus, were a factor motivating his attempts to quit smoking. 

Consequently, under the applicable rules of appellate review, we are required to conclude 

the jury drew this inference. Accordingly, we reject Honeywell’s argument that 

Phillips’s returns to smoking after attempts to quit conclusively establish that he 

disregarded warning labels and, more specifically, would have disregarded any warning 

placed on boxes containing Bendix brakes. The rejection of this argument also is 

supported by the fact that cigarettes are addictive and the jury reasonably could have 

inferred that Phillips’s returns to smoking were caused more by cigarette’s addictive 

qualities than Phillips’s cavalier attitude towards health risks. 

5. Relationship Between Warnings and Decision to Start Smoking

The next dispute about reasonable inferences relates to Phillips’s decision to start

smoking, which we analyze separately from his decisions to return to smoking after 

attempts to quit. We conclude his decision to start smoking does not compel the 

inference that Phillips would not have followed warnings that would have significantly 

reduced his inhalation of asbestos fibers. 

Phillips testified that he started smoking despite the warning labels on cigarette 

packages. This testimony provides an example of a situation where Phillips was made 

aware that an activity posed potential health risks and he decided to engage in that 

activity anyway. However, Phillips’s decision to start smoking did not compel the jury to 

infer that Phillips would not have followed warnings relating to asbestos in Bendix 
50.

brakes. The warning about the health risks associated with smoking relates to the 

threshold decision of whether to smoke, an either-or decision. This threshold decision 

weighs the personal satisfaction derived from smoking against the health risks of 

smoking. Personal satisfaction—the reason for consuming a cigarette—could not have 

been achieved without assuming the risk that is the subject of the warning—namely, 

inhaling tobacco smoke.

In contrast, the safety risks associated with the threshold decision to work with 

asbestos-containing brakes are different because the primary goal of the activity is a 

vehicle with new brakes—a goal that can be achieved while heeding warnings for 

minimizing the installer’s exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. Phillips’s testimony 

showed that the removal and installation of brakes involved many steps and the 

techniques used to complete those steps affected the amount of asbestos-containing dust 

created. As a result, an adequate warning about the health hazards posed by asbestos in 

brakes and how to avoid exposure to airborne asbestos fibers could be followed and the 

goal of a vehicle with new brakes achieved. (See Webb, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 181 

[adequate warnings inform consumers about hazards and allows them to minimize the 

danger by careful use].) The differences between the purpose or goal of smoking and the 

purpose or goal of installing brakes weakens the inference that Phillips reaction to a 

warning on the boxes of Bendix brakes would have been the same as his reaction to the 

warning on cigarette packaging when he started smoking. The cigarette-brake 

comparison is not apples to apples, but closer to comparing apples to orangutans. 

In summary, we conclude the balancing done by a person who decides to accept 

the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes in return for the personal satisfaction 

derived from the tobacco is distinguishable from the decisions made by a person who 

removes and installs brakes. The various steps of removing and installing brakes can be 

completed while implementing measures that reduce the airborne asbestos generated and, 

thus, the attendant health risks. Based on this distinction, the jury reasonably could 
51.

conclude Phillips’s decision to smoke and decisions to start smoking after quitting did not 

support the inference that Phillips would not have followed adequate warnings about (1) 

the health hazards of asbestos and (2) how to minimize the risks when handling asbestoscontaining brakes. In addition, Phillips’s attempts to quit smoking reasonably support the 

inference that Phillips would have attempted to comply with a warning’s 

recommendation for how to minimize the risks of handling asbestos-containing brakes. 

E. Pipe Cutting Warning 

1. Phillips’s Testimony

During Phillips’s deposition, he testified about his employment for Mariposa High 

School and working with asbestos cement pipe. His testimony described how he cut the 

pipe and included the following exchange: 

“Q. If [the pipe] said, ‘Warning, do not cut,’ what would you have done?

“A. I would ask my boss what to do.

“Q. Okay. But otherwise, it was your job to install this pipe, which 

required cutting, so you would have done your job; right?

“A. I would have done my job.” 

The parties interpret this testimony differently as it relates to how Phillips might 

have reacted to a warning provided with the Bendix brakes. 

2. Arguments About Inferences

Honeywell argues that Phillips’s testimony about the hypothetical warning on 

asbestos-containing pipes “proves only that Phillips would have followed his employer’s 

instructions, not anything printed on a warning. In other words, only directions from his 

employer, not a warning on the pipe, could have changed Phillips’s behavior.” 

Honeywell interprets this and other testimony to mean that when Phillips made decisions 

for himself, “he did not read or follow warnings or instructions.” 
52.

Plaintiffs contend Phillips’s testimony is another instance—like his attempts to 

quit smoking—where he would take action consistent with the warning, rather than 

ignoring it. The trial court discussed the hypothetical about the warning on the pipe and 

concluded the warning would cause Phillips to do something other than cut the pipe 

because asking his employer what to do was not the same as cutting the pipe. Based in 

part on this analysis of Phillips’s testimony, the court denied Honeywell’s motion for a 

directed verdict on the failure to warn theory. 

3. Inferences Reasonably Drawn from Testimony

First, we consider Honeywell’s claim that it proved Phillips did not read warnings. 

The hypothetical posed to Phillips and his response tends to show that he would read a 

clearly visible warning on products he handled during his employment. Phillips’s 

statement that he would ask his boss what to do implies that he would read the warning 

rather than stop reading once he saw the word “warning.” The inference that Phillips 

would read a product warning also is supported by his testimony that he saw the warning 

on cigarettes packages, which the jury reasonably could interpret to mean that Phillips 

read the warning.

Second, we consider whether Phillips’s testimony about the hypothetical do-notcut warning compels the inference that he did not follow warnings. Like the trial court, 

we conclude the jury reasonably could infer that Phillips would not simply ignore 

warnings, but instead would seek further information. The warning in the hypothetical 

was narrowly worded. It did not specify whether the prohibition of cutting was related to 

product performance, worker safety, some other concern, or a combination of these 

considerations. Faced with this uncertainty about the reason for the warning, Phillips’s 

actions in going to his boss to obtain more information was reasonable. That reasonable 

action cannot be equated to ignoring the warning. Therefore, Phillips’s testimony about 

what he would have done does not compel the inference that he always ignored warnings 
53.

or, more specifically, that he would have ignored a warning on the packaging for Bendix 

brakes.

F. Phillips’s Testimony About Instructions for Brake Installation 

1. Phillips’s Testimony

During Phillips’s deposition, he was asked if he recalled the packaging of Bendix 

brakes changing in a significant way over the years. Phillips’s answered that he could not 

remember. The following exchange occurred:

“Q. Okay. When you opened the box of the brake shoes, what – what 

was inside?

“A. Brake shoes.

“Q. Anything else other than the brake shoes?

“A. Usually, they would be stacked, you know, on top of each other.

“Q. Okay.

“A. And –

“Q. Was there any literature or instructions or anything like that?

“A. You know, I couldn’t tell you.

“Q. Okay. Would you –

“A. I never read instructions. You’re a man; you know how it is.” 

The parties dispute how this testimony should be interpreted and what reasonable 

inferences drawn can be drawn from it. Part of the background for their dispute is 

provided by Cohen’s testimony that Bendix did not place anything inside the boxes. 

Consequently, the foregoing questions about instructions that might have been placed in 

boxes of Bendix brakes were hypothetical in nature and relate to whether warnings would 

have changed Phillips’s behavior. 
54.

2. The Parties’ Interpretations

Honeywell interprets Phillips’s testimony that “I never read instructions” to mean 

that Phillips categorically never read any instructions or warnings. Honeywell supports 

this interpretation by arguing Phillips did not qualify his testimony, but flatly said he 

never read instructions. Based on this interpretation, Honeywell contends any absence of 

a warning about asbestos did not cause Phillips’s illness because any warning given 

would not have been read and would not have changed Phillips’s behavior. 

Plaintiffs dispute this interpretation. They begin by arguing the never-readinstructions statement must be placed in the specific context of the questions about 

instructions inside boxes containing Bendix brakes. In that context, they argue that the 

statement can be interpreted to mean that Phillips never read any instructions placed 

inside a box containing Bendix brakes and explain this interpretation by noting “he 

already knew how to perform brake jobs and, therefore, did not need instructions on how 

to do them.” Plaintiffs also contend that Honeywell has misinterpreted the reference to 

instructions as including warnings even though the jury reasonably could have 

interpreted the testimony to mean that Phillips regarded instructions as different from 

warnings. 

3. “Read”: Past or Present Tense 

The first question of interpretation we address is an ambiguity that arises because 

Phillips’s testimony was presented to this court in written form, not as a sound recording. 

From the written record, we cannot ascertain how Phillips pronounced the word “read.” 

He might have used the present tense of the verb “read” and pronounced it the same as 

the word “reed.” Alternatively, he might have used the past tense and pronounced it the 

same as “red.” The parties’ briefing does not address this ambiguity. Honeywell’s 

descriptions of the testimony do not consistently indicate which tense was used, but 

Honeywell’s reply brief states: “He said flatly that he never read instructions.” In this 
55.

statement, “read” is pronounced the same as “red” and, thus, is used in the past tense. 

Based on Honeywell’s description and the rule that evidence must be viewed most 

favorably to the prevailing party (see pt. IV.C., ante), we interpret Phillips’s use of the 

word “read” as being in the past tense.

4. Categorical or Limited 

The second question of interpretation is whether the statement “I never read 

instructions” was meant as a categorical declaration or as a description limited to 

Phillips’s actions when handling brakes. Honeywell’s view that the jury was required to 

interpret the four-word sentence as a categorical statement is unpersuasive.

Generally, it is reasonable to interpret written or spoken words by referring to the 

context in which they were communicated. (See Taylor v. Dept. of Industrial Relations

(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 801, 811 [statutory construction]; Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. 

Sentry Ins. Co. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 903, 916, fn. 7 [contractual interpretation].) Honeywell 

has cited no case law rejecting this approach and requiring that statements by a witness 

be considered in isolation. In another case involving asbestos-related mesothelioma and 

the interpretation of testimony, the appellate court stated: “First, we conclude that Dr. 

Holstein’s testimony, when considered in context, can and should be interpreted to refer 

to exposures for which Crane alone is liable.” (Paulus v. Crane Co. (2014) 224 

Cal.App.4th 1357, 1365, italics added.) Also, even the testimony of a plaintiff—a person 

with a strong interest in the outcome of the litigation—is considered in context when an 

appellate court addresses how a reasonable trier of fact could have interpreted that 

testimony. (Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1256.)

Therefore, we reject Honeywell’s approach and conclude we must consider how 

the jury could have reasonably interpreted the statement “I never read instructions” in the 

context in which it was made. The subject being discussed immediately prior to the 

statement was the packaging of Bendix brakes, what Phillips did when he opened a box 
56.

containing Bendix brakes, and whether any instructions were included. As to the 

question about the inclusion of any instructions, Phillips responded, “You know, I 

couldn’t tell you.” Before the next question was completed, Phillips interjected, “I never 

read instructions. You’re a man; you know how it is.” In this context, it is reasonable to 

interpret Phillips’s statement “I never read instructions” as a modification of his prior 

statement that he could not say whether or not the box of Bendix brakes contained 

instructions. While Phillips could not say with certainty that there were no instructions, 

he was confident he never read any instructions that might have been included in the box 

of Bendix brakes. This interpretation is reasonable and supports the judgment. 

Therefore, we conclude this is the interpretation adopted by the jury.22 

The foregoing interpretation is not eliminated from the range of possible 

reasonable interpretations by Phillips’s subsequent statement, “You’re a man; you know 

how it is.” It is reasonable to interpret this statement about the behavior of men as an 

explanation for why Phillips (1) could not state with certainty whether or not the boxes of 

Bendix brakes contained instructions and (2) could state with confidence that he never 

read any instructions about how to install Bendix brakes. “You’re a man; you know how 

it is” reasonably can be interpreted as the follows: “Look, Mr. Attorney, you are an adult 

male and you know that adult males do not read instructions for tasks they already know 

how to do.” Phillips could have communicated the same idea by stating, “I never read 

instructions for installing brakes because it would have been a waste of time. I am as 

familiar with installing brakes as I am with driving and, like men everywhere, I do not 

read my car’s operator’s manual before going for a drive. That’s why I did not read 

 

22 Alternatively, we note that if Phillips had used the present tense of “read,” the jury 

reasonably could have interpreted the statement as “I never read instructions about brake 

installation because I learned how to install brakes when I was 14 years old.” In so 

doing, the jury would have rejected Honeywell’s categorical interpretation of the 

statement as meaning “I never read any kind of instructions ever.” 
57.

instructions before installing brakes.” This interpretation of Phillips’s testimony is 

among the interpretations that are (1) reasonable and (2) favorable to the plaintiffs and 

the judgment. Therefore, we are compelled by applicable law to conclude it is the 

interpretation adopted by the jury.

5. Instructions versus Warnings

The third question of interpretation we address is presented by plaintiffs’ argument 

that Honeywell has inappropriately interpreted Phillips’s statement about not reading 

“instructions” as encompassing warnings. We conclude (1) the word “instructions” is 

ambiguous and (2) it is reasonable to interpret it narrowly so that it excludes warnings. 

This interpretation provides an additional ground for rejecting Honeywell’s argument that 

the jury was compelled to interpret the statement “I never read instructions” as a 

statement by Phillips of a personal, life-long policy of never reading warnings. 

G. Summary of Reasonable Inferences

Phillips’s testimony about his smoking and attempts to quit, his testimony about 

the hypothetical warning on the transite pipe, and his testimony about instructions that 

might have been included in the boxes containing Bendix brakes provide an adequate 

evidentiary basis (albeit circumstantial) for inferring that Phillips would have taken note 

of, and attempted to comply with, an adequate warning about the health hazards of 

asbestos and how to reduce the risks of handling asbestos-containing brakes.

H. Failure to State All Material Facts

Where an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we may consider 

the appellant’s failure to present all material facts as forfeiting that challenge. 

An appellant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a particular 

finding must summarize the evidence on that point, favorable and unfavorable, and show 

how and why it is insufficient. (Hong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 

409.) Stated another way, an appellant who argues the evidence is insufficient has a duty 
58.

to set forth a fair and adequate statement of the evidence that is claimed to be insufficient. 

(Ibid.) The appellant cannot shift this burden onto respondent, nor is a reviewing court 

required to undertake an independent examination of the record when appellant has 

shirked this duty. (Ibid.) Accordingly, when an appellant omits unfavorable evidence, 

the appellate court may consider the argument about the insufficiency of the evidence 

forfeited. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.)

In this appeal, Honeywell’s omission or mischaracterization of material, 

unfavorable evidence provides a separate and independent ground for our decision to 

reject its arguments relating to the insufficiency of the evidence, both as to the failure to 

warn and as to malice for punitive damages. An exhaustive list is not necessary here and 

providing such a list would defeat the judicial-efficiency purpose of the rule. Two 

examples are enough to illustrate the point.

Honeywell stated the following about Phillips’s cigarette smoking: “He quit for 

the fourth and final time in 2012. (5 AA 1256.)” This description of Phillips’s testimony 

is based on his statement that he quit in “September of this year” and his “Yeah” 

answered when asked, “September 2012 or – yeah, 2012?” Honeywell’s statement is 

inaccurate because it does not reflect Phillips’s correction set forth two pages later in the 

record. There, Phillips stated for the explicit purpose of correcting his earlier testimony, 

“Well, when we said ‘September,’ I meant September of last year.” The deposition was 

taken in September 2012, so his reference to “last year” meant 2011. Therefore, 

Honeywell’s assertion that he quit smoking for the final time in 2012 is not accurate and 

omits material evidence unfavorable to Honeywell. The fact that Phillips quit smoking in 

2011 is material because it supports inferences that are unfavorable to Honeywell’s 

position about the effect of warning labels on Phillips.

Honeywell’s briefs also omitted a description of the March 1966 article published 

in the New York Times and titled, “Asbestos Dust Called a Hazard To at Least OneFourth of U.S.” (Boldface omitted.) This article, which was admitted into evidence as 
59.

trial exhibit 376, is material evidence unfavorable to Honeywell’s assertions about 

Bendix’s unawareness of the dangers of asbestos dust. Honeywell apparently thought the 

article and similar evidence was not material based on its theory that Bendix did not 

believe its finished product—as opposed to the individual ingredients—presented an 

actual, nontrivial danger to users. We reject this narrow approach to materiality. 

Evidence about the dangers of unprocessed asbestos are relevant to whether it was 

reasonable not to research the dangers posed by the asbestos in the resin in Bendix’s final 

product. Also, an article from a major newspaper in the state where the Troy facility was 

located is circumstantial evidence that tends to show management of Bendix was aware 

of the potential health risks of asbestos. 

V. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE OF MALICE*

A. Basic Principles of Law

1. Statutory Provisions

Subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 3294 provides that in tort actions, “where it 

is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of 

oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff ... may recover damages for the sake of 

example and by way of punishing the defendant.” The statute defines “malice” to include 

“despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious 

disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) 

“Oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust 

hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. 

(c)(2).) As this case is concerned primarily with safety, our discussion is focused on 

malice rather than the other grounds for imposing punitive damages. 

 

* See footnote, ante, page 1.
60.

2. Rules Applied to Unintentional Torts

Under Civil Code section 3294, “punitive damages sometimes may be assessed in 

unintentional tort actions.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 

1004.) The commission of a tort under principles of negligence or products liability, 

standing alone, is insufficient for awarding punitive damages. (See Taylor v. Superior 

Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894 [driving while intoxicated might, but does not 

necessarily, constitute malice].) “‘There must be circumstances of aggravation or 

outrage, such as spite or “malice,” or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the 

defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that 

[the defendant’s] conduct may be called wilful or wanton.’” (Id. at pp. 894-895.) 

3. Standard of Review

Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s finding of malice 

under Civil Code section 3294 are reviewed to determine whether substantial evidence 

supports the finding. (In re Marriage of Murray (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 581, 601.) The 

substantial evidence standard is applied by the appellate court despite the standard of 

proof being clear and convincing evidence. (Id. at pp. 601-602; cf. People v. Mosher

(1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 395 [substantial evidence standard of review applies where burden 

of proof applied by jury was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt].)

B. Denial of Summary Adjudication

Honeywell moved for summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for punitive 

damages. The trial court denied the motion, citing Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012) 

205 Cal.App.4th 68 (Bankhead) as a case where punitive damages were upheld based on 

a company’s prolonged failure to take adequate measures to protect people who worked 

with its product against a known hazard to their health. Here, the trial court stated a 

triable issue of fact existed “because there is evidence [Bendix] knew that asbestos was 

hazardous and provided precautions to its ‘customers’ of record but didn’t provide 
61.

precautions to individual users of Bendix brakes until legally required to do [so] in 1973, 

despite knowing of the risks in 1968.” 

C. Jury’s Findings and Award of Punitive Damages

The trial court instructed the jury on the elements that plaintiffs were required to 

prove to obtain an award of punitive damages, which included proving by clear and 

convincing evidence that Bendix engaged in conduct that constituted malice, oppression 

or fraud. The instructions stated that malice included conduct that “was despicable and 

was done with a willful and knowing disregard for the rights or safety of another.” The 

instructions explained, “A person acts with knowing disregard when he or she is aware of

the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and deliberately fails to avoid 

those consequences.” (CACI No. 3946.) Despicable conduct was described as “conduct 

that is so vile, base or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by 

reasonable people.” 

Question 15 of the special verdict asked the jury: “Do you find by clear and 

convincing evidence that Bendix, through one or more of its officers, directors, or 

managing agents, acted with malice or oppression in the conduct upon which you base 

your finding of liability?” In a nine-to-three vote, the jury answered “Yes.” 

As a result of this finding, a second phase of the trial was conducted to determine 

the amount of punitive damages. The jury awarded $3.5 million. Consequently, the 

punitive damages constituted slightly less than 60 percent of the total judgment of 

$5,876,540 entered against Honeywell. Stated another way, the punitive damages 

awarded were about 1.5 times the compensatory damages for which Honeywell was 

responsible.

D. Contentions of the Parties

Honeywell contends that “the punitive damages should be stricken because 

plaintiffs failed to prove that Bendix acted with malice or oppression by consciously 
62.

disregarding a known risk associated with its specific product.” Honeywell argues 

“decades of scientific studies have found that even career auto mechanics experience no 

increased risk of mesothelioma from working with brakes manufactured using chrysotile. 

A company does not act with malice by failing to protect against harm that most experts 

do not believe exists.” 

Plaintiffs contend that (1) malice in a product liability action is established by a 

conscious disregard for customer safety and (2) the evidence in this case showed Bendix 

knew about the dangers of asbestos and failed to take adequate measures to protect its 

customers. Plaintiffs characterize Honeywell’s arguments as a simple disagreement with 

the jury’s factual findings and not a sufficient ground for vacating the award of punitive 

damages. 

E. Recent Asbestos Cases Upholding Awards of Punitive Damages

Part of the context for evaluating the parties’ contentions about whether malice 

was proven is provided by cases involving mesothelioma caused by asbestos where 

punitive damages were awarded. In the following recent decisions, the finding of malice 

was upheld and the award of punitive damages affirmed. 

In Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Pfeifer), a boiler 

technician brought negligence and strict liability claims against a company that 

manufactured and distributed products containing asbestos. (Id. at pp. 1280-1281.) The 

boiler technician alleged his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to the company’s 

asbestos-laden products. (Id. at p. 1280.) The jury found over $7 million in economic 

and noneconomic damages and awarded $14.5 million in punitive damages. (Id. at pp. 

1283-1284.) The company challenged the award of punitive damages on various 

grounds, including that there was insufficient evidence of malice or oppression or, 

alternatively, “its conduct was insufficiently reprehensible to support the $14.5 million 

punitive damages award.” (Id. at pp. 1301, 1311.) The company contended the evidence 
63.

of malice or oppression was insufficient because evidence supported the inference that it 

had sold its products with a good faith belief that they were safe. (Id. at p. 1301.) The 

company argued it reasonably believed the bonding agents in its products fully 

encapsulated the asbestos fibers; no specific study showed its products were unsafe; and 

its failure to test the products was consistent with industrywide practices. (Ibid.) The 

appellate court rejected these arguments, concluding the company “knew that its 

customers used the products in ways capable of generating dangerous levels of asbestos 

dust, yet it neither attempted to determine such levels nor issued warnings.” (Id. at pp. 

1301-1302.)

In Bankhead, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th 68, a man who worked at automotive 

maintenance facilities for a period of 30 years was diagnosed with mesothelioma. (Id. at 

p. 73.) He and his wife sued a number of manufacturers of asbestos-containing brake 

linings and brake shoes. (Id. at p. 74.) The jury found against all defendants as to 

liability and punitive damages. (Ibid.) ArvinMeritor, a brakeshoe manufacturer, was 

held liable for approximately $1.8 million in compensatory damages and $4.5 million in 

punitive damages. (Id. at pp. 74, 76.) 

The evidence showed that (1) by the 1960’s, ArvinMeritor knew workers exposed 

to asbestos dust were at risk for developing asbestos-related disease; (2) it did not place 

any warnings on its products until the early 1980’s; and (3) the warnings on its products 

did not reference cancer until the fall of 1987. (Bankhead, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 

73.) ArvinMeritor did not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding it 

was liable for punitive damages, but challenged the amount of the award as excessive. 

(Id. at pp. 76, 84) In discussing the reprehensibility of the manufacturer’s conduct, the 

appellate court stated: 

“While there is no evidence that ArvinMeritor intended to injure [the 

plaintiff] or anyone else in particular, its prolonged failure to take adequate 

measures to protect people who worked with its products against a known 

hazard to their health and safety justifies the jury’s conclusion that its 
64.

conduct towards workers exposed to the hazards in its products was 

malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive.” (Id. at p. 86.)

In Izell v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962 (Izell), the owner of a 

residential construction business was diagnosed with mesothelioma and sued more than 

20 manufacturers or suppliers allegedly responsible for the asbestos-containing products 

to which he was exposed. (Id. at p. 967.) Five defendants, including Union Carbide, 

went to trial. (Ibid.) The jury awarded $30 million in compensatory damages and 

apportioned 65 percent of the responsibility to Union Carbide. (Ibid.) Only Union 

Carbide remained for the punitive damages phase and the jury awarded $18 million. (Id. 

at p. 968.) The trial court issued a remittitur reducing the compensatory damages from 

$30 million to $6 million, which the owner and his wife accepted, and allowed the 

punitive damages award to stand. (Ibid.) The appellate court affirmed the award of 

punitive damages, concluding the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. (Id. at p. 

966.)

The majority in Izell determined the evidence showed “Union Carbide acted with 

reprehensible indifference to the health and safety of others.” (Izell, supra, 231 

Cal.App.4th at p. 985.) The supporting evidence included (1) a 1967 internal report 

concluding that low levels of exposure to asbestos could cause mesothelioma and (2) a 

1968 report of Union Carbide’s associate medical director stating, “‘[i]t is generally held 

that much less exposure to asbestos increases the possibility of mesothelioma formation’” 

and advising admitting asbestos was carcinogenic under certain conditions. (Id. at p. 

986.) Despite these reports, Union Carbide chose not to warn its customers about the risk 

of cancer. (Ibid.) 

F. Evidence of Honeywell’s Reprehensible Conduct

Honeywell’s challenge to the award of punitive damages raises the issue of 

whether substantial evidence supports a finding that Bendix engaged in despicable 

conduct involving a willful and conscious disregard of the safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 
65.

3294, subd. (c)(1) [definition of malice].) In accordance with the jury instructions about 

a knowing disregard, we consider whether the evidence supports a finding that Bendix 

was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct and deliberately failed 

to avoid those consequences. 

1. Awareness

The record contains a variety of direct and indirect evidence about Bendix’s 

awareness of health risks associated with asbestos in general and with the type of 

asbestos (chrysotile) used at its Troy facility to manufacture brakes. This evidence 

includes Cohen’s testimony about regulations implemented by the State of New York in 

1956 that set a maximum allowable concentration of airborne asbestos. Bendix’s 

awareness of the risk that asbestos would cause disease and that this risk extended to 

chrysotile used in its brakes also can be inferred from the fact that, sometime during the 

1950’s, Bendix began giving employees at the Troy facility annual chest x-rays. 

Despite the dust control mechanisms Bendix implemented at the Troy facility in 

the 1940’s, the New York regulations adopted in 1956, the program of chest x-rays for 

Bendix employees adopted in the 1950’s, and the March 1966 New York Times article, 

Cohen testified awareness occurred in 1968. Cohen was asked about “the first time that 

Bendix had any indication that asbestos could cause disease in any context,” he answered 

that he was not sure what “in any context” meant, but stated a 1968 letter from JohnsManville, Bendix’s asbestos supplier, put Bendix on notice. 

The jury could have found that Bendix became aware of the probable dangerous 

consequences (as opposed to known dangerous consequences) well before 1968. 

However, for purposes of this appeal, will assume the jury found that date was 1968.23 

 

23 This assumption renders irrelevant Honeywell’s argument that “the mere fact that 

Bendix took precautions against possible harms from working with asbestos in factory 

conditions does not support a reasonable inference ... that Bendix knew of probable 

dangerous consequences from working with brakes that contained processed chrysotile 

fibers embedded in resin.” We note that Honeywell’s argument is similar to the 
66.

Cohen’s testimony and the evidence discussed above constitutes substantial evidence 

that, at a minimum, Bendix was aware by 1968 of the probable dangerous consequences 

of exposure to chrysotile, such as the risk of contracting cancer. This awareness 

specifically relates to chrysotile because it was the type of asbestos Bendix obtained from 

Johns-Manville and used to manufacture brakes at its Troy facility. Consequently, we 

reject Honeywell’s argument that Bendix was not aware of probable dangerous 

consequences of using chrysotile even if it knew other types of asbestos were hazardous 

to health when inhaled.

2. Failure to Avoid Probable Dangerous Consequences

Bendix’s failure to avoid the probable dangers of exposure to chrysotile was 

established by (1) its delay in warning the people who installed its brakes about the 

dangers and (2) its failure to conduct any research into the health consequences of 

exposure to chrysotile asbestos. 

Honeywell argues Bendix did conduct research, stating that from 1971 through 

1973 Bendix worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to test the amount of 

asbestos fibers that are released into the atmosphere from braking operations. A report of 

tests performed at Bendix research laboratories during that period found that 99.7 percent 

of the asbestos was destroyed during the braking operations and, therefore, less than 

three-tenths of a percent might have been emitted into the atmosphere. We reject 

Honeywell’s argument because the research was limited to a very specific question that 

did not extend to health consequences24 and, more importantly, the jury could have found 

 

argument made by the manufacturer in Pfeifer about its reasonable belief “that the 

bonding agents in the products fully encapsulated the asbestos fibers.” (Pfeifer, supra, 

220 Cal.App.4th at p. 1301.) The court rejected that argument because it was not based 

on a proper application of the substantial evidence standard of review. (Ibid.) 

Honeywell’s argument suffers from the same deficiency. 

24 Rogers testified that he did not know if Bendix ever spent any money on the 

health effects of asbestos during any time frame. Many of the references in Tawiah’s 
67.

Bendix’s research into brake dust was self-serving and not credible. As a reviewing 

court, we must resolve questions of credibility in favor of the jury’s determinations. 

(Norman v. Department of Real Estate (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 768, 772.) Here, the 

report’s lack of credibility is supported by the fact the report was very favorable to 

Bendix and was contradicted by studies referred to by Dr. Brodkin that found 20 to 50 

times higher rates of residual asbestos (i.e., 6 to 15 percent) in brake dust. In sum, 

Bendix’s purported reliance on its own incredible report did not preclude, as a matter of 

law, the jury from finding that Bendix was aware of the probable dangerous 

consequences of its conduct and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.

As to a prolonged failure to warn, a jury reasonably could have found that Bendix 

acted despicably by not placing warnings on its product packaging until 1973, five years 

after it became aware of the probable dangerous consequences of using chrysotile.25 A 

failure to warn can amount to despicable conduct warranting punitive damages when the 

failure amounts to a conscious disregard for the safety of the persons to whom the 

warning would have been directed. (E.g. Bankhead, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 86 

[prolonged failure to take adequate measure to protect people who worked with 

product].) 

In summary, the jury could reasonably find Bendix’s lack of research and its 

failure to include a warning on its packaging before 1973 were willful decisions that 

demonstrated Bendix failed to avoid the probable dangerous consequences to the people 

installing and removing its brakes from vehicles. Therefore, we conclude there is 

 

December 1975 review of medical literature predate 1970 and, therefore, a similar type of 

review conducted earlier would have provided Bendix with further information about the 

health dangers of asbestos. 

25 For purposes of this discussion, we assume that the jury found Honeywell’s 

evidence about the timing and existence of warning labels was credible. This 

assumption, though favorable to Honeywell, is harmless to plaintiffs.
68.

substantial evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding of malice as defined in 

Civil Code section 3294. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal.

_____________________

FRANSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________

HILL, P.J.

_____________________

GOMES, J.